f 


syne a 














\ 7 
Book, | No) se. Vs fee 


hap hy A HY 


Theological Seminary; 
PRINCETON, N.J. 


<— Pal 7 IF ae 
ia. ; / ) 
Case, tO ok Wabi iene Voce 


Shelf, . Sectionaeal, A bak wong 
a ae sonnet 





COP, | 





é —— 
oo 


ed 





<2 


re. 
= 


[ a r ' 
> ‘tied | oe ae . 
ger ree mand 
wa ” ” a 
a -- f-. j + 
J ; 


‘Wa 


: ds y ¥ a 


» 
* 9 
| “Se 
fe @ 
~ ; ° 
- re 
‘ 
¥ : 
3 a 
-_ a 4 
ha 
é “. 
’ ‘ P 
Ns 
a 
* = + 
J oe , 
as 
, . ; 
ae 
: ‘ ai 
. “ye 











4 


fs 


me sce orgidetails/commentaryonepis02stua sh, 


et ae /. 


x! 








PART II. 


at ees Oe 





COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 





IN TWO VOLUMES. 





BY M. STUART 


Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Andover. 





VOL. It. 


ANDOVER: 


PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN 
Codman press....Flagg & Gould. 


1828. 


a z oe UF Ply ws af vee ay 


“Oy 
r ayy i Ph leeiete ‘te pring! 


- wt . 
5a” 


- : fe y per, ri bb: 
pe ee me 


Pi; vag yA ssi et, 





PREFACE. 





It is proper to advertise the reader, that in the translation of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is prefixed to the present vol- 
ume, I have purposely avoided the usual division into chapters 
and verses, which is exhibited in our common editions of the Scrip- 
tures. I have done this, because the sense is sometimes disturbed 
by it, and the reader is unwarily led to associate things together, 
in a manner which the writer of the epistle never intended. 

The words or phrases, which are supplied in the translation, 
and which are not expressed in the original Greek, I have uniform- 
ly included in brackets, so that the reader may at once see the ex- 
tent of the liberty that has been taken, in order to render the ver- 
sion more explicit. 

For the sake of accommodation, the designation of the chapters 
and verses is made upon the margin. The larger pauses mark the 
end of a verse, when they occur in a line that is opposite to any 
number designating a verse ; and when these fail to do it, the de- 
signation is made by a perpendicular stroke (| ). 

I have, in most cases, repeated the greater part of the transla- 
tion, in printing the Commentary or Notes upon the Original. This 
has been done, merely to save the reader the trouble of turning 
continually back to the version; which is often tedious, and al- 
ways inconvenient. But I have not been careful always to repeat 
verbatim, in the notes, the words of the translation, as they stand at 
the commencement of this volume. In fact, the reader may re- 
gard the version at the head of the volume, and that contained 
among the notes, as two different versions. They were, for the 
most part, made at different times, and in a measure independently 
of each other. The former, is that on which I have bestowed most 
pains as to diction. The latter, is merely designed to facilitate the 
tabours of the student. 


IV PREFACE. 


In regard to the Excursus, different opinions will not improba- 
bly be entertained respecting them. The expediency of them, 
their length, and the correctness of some of the positions which 
they advance, may all be called in question. In matters so difficult 
and delicate, and which have so long been the theme of controver- 
sy, it cannot be expected that there will be, at once, an entire and 
universal agreement of opinion. The writer of these sheets does not 
venture to flatter himself with the expectation, that all will adopt his 
views. Of one thing however he is very confident; and this is, that 
he claims no authority of any kind, over the opinions of others. But 
he thinks it proper to express his sincere desire, that those, who may 
differ from him as to some of the opinions advanced in the Excur- 
sus, or in the body of the work, would thoroughly examine the sub- 
jects in respect to which they may think him erroneous, before 
they pass sentence of condemnation. It is not too much, moreover, 
to request that they would assign their reasons why they differ from 
him. In this way, differences of opinion may ultimately aid in the 
discovery of truth, with respect to dark and difficult subjects, and 
so prove to be of real utility to the church. 

Subjects of high and awful interest in religion should not be 
treated with obtrusive confidence, nor with presumption. [I shall 
most thankfully accept any better light than I now have, let it 
come from what quarter it may. Being a Protestant, and nudlius 
addictus jurare in verba magistri, I deem it not unreasonable to 
expect, that where I may be in the wrong, I may be convinced by 
argument, not silenced by authority. Appeals should ever be 
made, by Protestants, to the understanding ; not ad invidiam, nor 
to current or popular prejudice. 

_. With these explanations of my views and feelings, I commit the 
work to the friends of exegetical study, not without much solici- 
tude as to the opinion which the wise and the good may entertain 
respecting it; but still, with some hope, that it may serve to aid 
such as are aiming io attain a critical knowledge of the Scriptures, 
or at least, excite some to efforts, which shall end in the produc- 
tion of better Commentaries on the Scriptures, than are yet before 
the public. 

M. STUART. 


Theological Seminary, Andover, 
March 25, 1828. 


THE 


EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 





Dignity of Christ. His superiority over the angels. 


Gop, who in ancient times spake often and in various 
ways to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days 
2 spoken to us by his Son; whom he hath appointed Lord 
3 of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who, (be- 

ing the radiance of his glory and the exact image of his sub- 

stance, and controlling all things by his own powerful word), 
after he had by himself made expiation for our sins, sat down 

4 atthe right hand of the majesty on high, 1 being exalted as 
much above the angels, as he hath obtained a name more 
excellent than they. 

5 For to which of the angels said he, at any time, “ Thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” And again, oe 

6 will be his Father, and he shall be my Son?” Again also, 
when he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, 

“ Let all the angels of God worship him.” 
i Moreover, of the angels it is said, ““ Who maketh his an- 

gels winds, and his ministering servants a flame of fire.” 
8 But of the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is eternal; a sceptre 
9 of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast 


loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore, O God, 
VOL. I. . 2 


10 


10 


it 
12 


13 


14 


i. 


i) 


6 


~t 


HEBREWS I. 10—II. 7. 





thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
thy fellows.” Alse, “Thou Lord, in the beginning, didst 
lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work 
of thy hands ; | they shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, 
they shall all wax old like a garment, | and as a vesture shalt 
thou fold them up, and they shall decay; but thou art the 


same, and thy years shall never cease.” 


Unto which of the angels, also, hath he ever said, “ Sit 
thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool?” Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to as- 


sist those who are to obtain salvation ? 


Exhortation diligently to seek the salvation proffered by the Lord of glory. 

Ir behooveth us, therefore, the more abundantly to give 
heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we 
should slight them. For if the law communicated by angels 
was established, and every transgression aud disobedience re- 
ceived a just reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so 
great salvation? which, being first declared by the Lord, was 
afterwards confirmed unto us by those who heard [him] ; 
God also bearing witness with them, by signs, and wonders, 
and diverse miraculous powers, and communications of the 


Holy Spirit, according to dis will. 


Further declaration of Christ’s superiority over the angels. Objections against this, 
drawn from his human nature, removed by showing the elevation of that nature, and the 
important objects accomplished by assuming it. 


_ Moreover, unto the angels hath he not put in subjection 
the world that was to come, of which we are now speaking. 
But one, in a certain place, hath testified, saying, “ What is 
man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man, that 
thou dost regard him? [Yet] thou hast made him but little 


lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory 


HEBREWS If. 8—18. li 





8 


10 


11 
12 
13 


14 


and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. 
All things hast thou put under his feet.” Now by putting all 
things in subjection to him, he left nothing which is not sub- 
ject to him. For the present, indeed, we do not see all 
things yet subjected to him; but we see Jesus, who was 
made but little lower than the angels, crowned with glory 
and honour on account of the suffering of death, when by 
the grace of God he had tasted death for all. It became 
him, also, for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
things, to bestow, on account of sufferings, the highest hon- 
ours upon him who is the Captain of their salvation, leading 
many sons to glory. 

Furthermore, both he who maketh expiation, and they 
for whom expiation is made, are of one [nature]; for which 
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, | saying, “1 
will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the 
congregation will I praise thee.” And again, “I will put 
my trust in him.” And again, “ Behold, I and the children 
which God hath given me!” Since then the children are 
partakers of flesh and blood, himself also in like manner par- 
took of them, in order that by his death he might subdue him 


15 who had a deadly power, that is, the devil, | and free those, 


16 


17 


18 


who, through fear of condemnation, had during their whole 
lives been exposed to a state of bondage. 

Besides, he doth not at all help the angels, but he helpeth 
the seed of Abraham. Hence it was necessary, that in all 
respects he should be like to his brethren, so that he might 
be a merciful and faithful high priest as to things which per- — 
tain to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of 
the people. For inasmuch as he himself suffered, being 


tempted, he is able to succour those who are tempted. 


‘12 HEBREWS Ill. 1—15. 





Comparison of Christ with Moses. Warning against disregarding his admonitions. 
Hil. W uererore, holy brethren, who have received the hea- 
venly invitation, attentively consider Jesus, the apostle and 
2 high priest whom we have acknowledged ; who was faith- 
ful to him that appointed him, even as Moses [was], in all 
3 his house. For he is worthy of more glory than Moses, in-_ 
asmuch as the builder is entitled to more honour than the 
4 house. (Now every house is built by some one, and he who 
5 formed all things is God.) Moses, however, was faithful in 
all his house as a servant, for the sake of testifying those 
6 things which were to be declared; but Christ, as a Son, 
over his house ; whose house we are, provided we hold fast 
unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. 
7 Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith, “To day, while ye 
8 hear his voice, 1 harden not your hearts, as in the provoca- 
9 tion, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, | when your 
fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty 
10 years. Wherefore ] was angry with that generation, and 
said, They do always err in their hearts, and they have not 
11 acknowledged my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall 
not enter into my rest.” * i 
12 _ Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil and 
unbelieving heart, so that he may apostatise from the living 
13 God. But admonish one another continually, while it is call- 
ed to day, so that no one of you may become hardened by 
14 sinful delusion. For we shall be made partakers of the bless- 
ings which Christ bestows, provided we hold fast even to the 
end our first confidence. 
15 With regard to the saying, “To day, while ye hear his 


HEBREWS IIIf. 16—IV. 8. 13 





> who 


16 voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation ;? 
now were they, that when they heard did provoke? Nay, did 
17 not all, who came out of Egypt under Moses? And with 
whom was he angry, forty years? Was it not with those 
18 who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? To whom 
did he swear, that they should not enter into his rest, except 
19 to those who did not believe? We see, then, that they 


could not enter in, because of unbelief. 


The rest promised to believers in ancient times is still proffered. The threateninge 
against unbelief remain in full force. 


IV. Let us beware, therefore, since a promise is still left of 
entering into his rest, lest any one of you should come short 

2 of it. For to us also blessings are proclaimed, as well as to 
them; the word, however, which they heard, did not profit 
them, not being connected with faith in those who heard it. 

3 But we who believe do enter into the rest ; as he says, “ So 
I sware, in my wrath, [unbelievers] shall not enter into my 


rest ;” 


namely, [rest from] the works which had been per- 
4 formed, after the foundation of the world was laid. For [the 
Scripture] speaketh, in a certain place, concerning the seventh 
day, in this manner, “ And God rested, on the seventh day, 
5 from all his works.” And again, in this [manner], “ They 
6 shall not enter into my rest.” Since then it remaineth that 
some must enter into that [rest], and they, to whom this bless- 
ing was formerly proclaimed, did not enter in because of 
unbelief, [it followeth, that believers only can enter into it.*] 
Again, he specifieth a particular day, To-pay, when speak- 
ing by David, so long a time afterwards; as it is said, * 'To- 


8 pay, while ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Now, 





* Supplied from v. 3. 


14 


HEBREWS IV. 9—V. 2. 





11 
12 


13 


14 


16 


i) 


if Joshua had given them rest, then he would not have spoken 
of another day. 

Consequently, there remaineth a rest for the people of 
God. He, moreover, who entereth into his [God’s] rest, will 
also cease from his own works, as God did from his. 

Let us strive, then, to enter into that rest, so that no one 
may perish in like manner, through unbelief. For the 
threatening of God hath an active and mighty power, yea, it 
is sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the 
dividing asunder of both life and spirit, and of the joits and 
marrow: he also judgeth the thoughts and purposes of the 
heart; nor is there any thing which can be concealed from 
his sight, but all is naked and exposed to the view of him, 


unto whom we must render our account. 


Comparison of Christ with the Jewish high priest introduced. Reproof for ignorance 
of the higher doctrinesof the Christian religion, followed by encouragement and exhorta- 
tion. 


Moreover, since we have a high priest who has pass- 
ed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold 
fast to our profession. For we have not a high priest, who 
is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses; but one who 
was tempted in_all respects as we are, [yet] without sin. 
Let us, therefore, approach the throne of grace with confi- 
dence that we may obtain mercy, and find favour, so as to be 
assisted in time of need. 

Now every high priest, taken from among men, is ap- 
pointed in behalf of men on account of things which pertain 
to God, that he may present both oblations and sacrifices for 
sin; being able to shew kindness to the ignorant and the 


erring, inasmuch as he himself is compassed with infirmity. 


HEBREWS V.3—VI. 2. 15 





_ 3 On this account, also, he must present sin-offerings, as well 


4 


11 
12 


13 
14 


VE 


2 


for himself as for the people. Moreover, noone assumeth for 
himself this honour, but he is called [thereto] of God, even 
as Aaron was. 

In like manner, Christ also did not claim for himself the 
honour of being high priest; but he who said, “ Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” [bestowed this hon- 
our upon him]. So also he saith, in another place, “ ‘Thou 
art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.” 

The same, in the days of his incarnation, (having offered 
up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and with tears, 
unto him that was able to save him from death, and being de- 
livered from that which he feared,) | although a Son, was 
made acquainted with obedience in a state of suffering. 
Then, when exalted to glory, he became the author of eter- 
nal salvation, to all who obey him, | being called of God, “ A 
high priest, after the order of Melchisedek.” 

Respecting him we have much to say, which it will be 
difficult to explain, since ye are dull of apprehension. For 
even when ye ought to be able to teach, after [so long] a 
time, ye have need to be taught again the first elements of 
the oracles of God, and need milk rather than solid food. 
For every one, who is a partaker of milk, is unskilled in the 
doctrines of religion; he is yet achild. But solid food is 
for those of mature age, who have faculties exercised by 
practice for the distinguishing of both good and evil. 

Wherefore, leaving the first principles of Christian doc- 
trine, let us go-on toward a mature state [of religious know]- 
edge]; not laying again the foundation, concerning repent- 
ance from works which cause death, and faith towards God ; 
[concerning] the doctrine of baptisms, and the laying on 


16 


HEBREWS VI. 3—17. 


of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judg- 


3,4 ment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is im- 


Oo on 


oO 


10 


ll 


12 


14 


16 


possible, that they, who have been once enlightened, and have 
tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the 
holy Spirit, 1 and have tasted the good word of God, and 
the miraculous powers of the age which was to come, | and 
have fallen away, should be again renewed to repentance, 
since they have crucified for themselves the Son of God, 
and openly exposed him to shame. 

Now the earth, which drinketh in the rain that frequent- 
ly cometh upon it, and bringeth forth fruits useful to those for 
whose sake it is tilled, receiveth blessings from God. But 
that which bringeth forth thorns and briars, is reprobate, and 
is near to a curse which will end in burning. 

But, beloved, we confidently hope for better things con- 
cerning you, even those connected with salvation, although 
we thus speak. For God is not unkind, so that ‘he will for- 
get your labour, and the love which ye have shown toward 
his name, in having performed kind offices toward the saints, 
and in still performing them. 

Moreover, we are desirous that every one of you should 
manifest the same diligence, for the sake of a full assurance 
of hope, even to the end; so that ye may not be slothful, 


but imitators of those, who, through faith and patient expec- 


tation, have come to the possession of promised blessings. 
For when God made a promise to Abraham, seeing he 
could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, 
“T will greatly bless thee, and exceedingly multiply thee.” 
And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promised 
blessing. Now men swear by one who is greater, and the 
oath for confirmation [maketh] an end of all dispute among 


wf 
HEBREWS VI. 17—VII. 7. 17 





17 them. In like Miter: God, desirous of shewing more 
abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of his 
18 purpose, interposed by an oath; so that by two immutable 
things, concerning which it is impossible for God to lie, we, 
who have sought for a refuge, might be strongly persuaded 
19 to hold fast the hope that is set before us, 1 which we cleave 
to as an anchor of the soul sure and firmly fixed, and which 
20 entereth within the vail, | whither Jesus our forerunner hath 
gone, being made high priest forever, after the order of Mel- 


chisedek. 


Comparison of Christ, as a priest, with Melchisedek. New order of things required 
by the appointment of such a priest; which appointment was made with the solemnity 
of an oath; and the office created by it was perpetual, allowing of no succession like 
that of the Jewish priests. 


Vil. Now this Melchisedek was king of Salem, and .priest of 

the most high God. The same met Abraham returning 

2 from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. To him, 

also, Abraham gave a tenth part of all. By interpretation, 

[his name] meaneth, first, King of Righteousness ; and then, 

he is also King of ‘Salem, which meaneth, King of Peace. 

3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy ; having 

neither beginning of days nor end of life, but being like to the 
Son of God; he remaineth a high priest perpetually. 

Consider, now, how great he must be, to whom Abraham 

5 the patriarch gave a tenth part of the spoils! Even the 

sons of Levi, who take the office of priests, have indeed a 

command by the law to tithe the people, that is, their breth- 

6 ren, although descended from the loins of Abraham; but 

he, whose descent is not counted from them, tithed Abraham, 

7 and blessed him to whom the promises were made. And 

beyond all controversy, the inferior was blessed by the su- 

perior. 


VOL. II. 3 





od 
i 
‘iy 
18 HEBREWS VII. 8~22., 
- 
8 Here, also, men receive tithes who die; but there, one 
9 of whom it is testified that he liveth. Yea, (if I] may so 


10 


11 


12 
13 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 
21 


22 


speak), even Levi himself, who receiveth tithes, was tithed in 
Abraham; for he was then in the loins of his ancestor, 
when Melchisedek met him. 

Moreover, if there had been a perfect accomplishment 
of what was needed, by the Levitical priesthood, (for the 
law was given to the people, in connexion with this), what ve- 
cessity was there still, that another priest should arise after 
the order of Melchisedek, and not be named after the order 
of Aaron? But if the priesthood be changed, there must 
needs be also a change of the law. Now he, concerning 
whom these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, 
none of whom served at the altar; for it is plain, that our 
Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses 
said nothing concerning the priesthood. And _ still more 
manifest is it, [that the priesthood is changed], if another 
priest hath arisen, like to Melchisedek ; who hath not been 
made so by a law of temporary obligation, but by an authori- 
ty of endless duration. For [the Scripture] declareth, “ Thou 
art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.” 

There is, also, a setting aside of the preceding law, be- 
cause it was weak and unavailing. For the law did not fully 
accomplish any thing; but the introduction of a better hope 
[doth], by which we draw near to God. 

Furthermore, in as much as not without an oath [Jesus 
was made a priest], 1 (for they are made priests without an 
oath, but he with an oath, by him who said to him, “The 
Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for- 
ever, afier the order of Melchisedek,)” 1 by so much hath Je- 
sus become the surety of a Paper ep ronan. 





23 
24 


25 


26 


27 


28 


at 


HEBREWS VII. 23—VII. 5. 19 





Those priests, moreover, are many, because they are not 
suffered to continue by reason of death; but he, because he 
continueth forever, hath a priesthood without any succession ; 
and on this account he is able always to save those who 
come unto God by him, since he ever liveth to interpose in 
their behalf. 


The subject of Christ’s qualifications for the office of a priest, (proposed in 5:23, and 
briefly discussed in 5: 7—9), resumed. His superiority over the Jewish priests, in respect 
to these, exhibited. 


Such a high priest, moreover, was needful for us, who is 
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted 
above the heavens; who hath not any daily necessity, like 
the high priests, to offer sacrifices, first for their own sins, 
and then for the sins of the people ; for this he did, once for 
all, when he offered up himself. Now the law maketh men 
high priests, who have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, 
which was since the law, [maketh] the Son [high priest], 


who is exalted to glory for ever more. 


Expiatory office of Christ as a priest. His functions, the dispensation under which 
they are performed, the place of exercising them, the manner and effects of them, com- 
pared with those of the Jewish priests. 


VIII. The principal thing, however, among those of which we 


cr 


are speaking, is, that we have sucha high priest, who is 
seated on the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heav- 
ens, | a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle 
which the Lord hath reared and not man. 

Now every high priest is appointed, in order that he may 
present oblations and sacrifices; whence it becometh necessa- 
ry, that this one also should have something which he may pre- 
sent. But if he were on earth, then he could not bé a priest, 
seeing there are priests who present oblations according to 


the law; (the same who perform service in [that sanctuary 


20. 


10 


11 


12 


13 


IX. 


2 


HEBREWS VIII. 6—IX. 2. 





which is but] a mere copy of the heavenly one; for Moses, 
when about to build the tabernacle, was divinely admonished, 
“See, now,” said he, “that thou make all things according 
to the pattern shewed thee in the mount.)” But now, he- 
hath obtained a service which is more excellent; as much 
more as the covenant is better of which he is mediator, and 
which is sanctioned by better promises. 

Moreover, if that first covenant had been faultless, then 
would no place have been sought for the second. But find- 
ing fault [with the first], he saith to them, “ Behold the days 
are coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant 
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not 
according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, 
in the day when I took them by the hand, to bring them out 
of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my cove- 
nant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the 
covenant, which I will make with the house of Israel after 
those days, saith the Lord ; I will impress my laws upon their 
minds, and engrave them upon their hearts; and I will be 
their God, and they shall be my people. No one shall teach 
his fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the 
Lord; for all shall know me, from the least even to the great- 
est. For I will be merciful in respect to their miquities, and 
their sins and their ‘transgressions will I remember no more.” 

By saying, “a new [covenant],” he representeth the first as 
old; now that which hath become old, and is advancing in 
age, is nigh to dissolution. 

Moreover the first [covenant] had ordinances of service, 
and a sanctuary of an earthly nature.- For an outer taber- 
nacle was prepared, in which was the candlestick, and the 


table, and the shew-bread, which is called, ‘The holy place. 


10 


rt 


12 


14 


HEBREWS IX. 3—14. 21 





Avd behind the second vail was the tabernacle, which is call- 
ed, The holy of holies, | containing the golden censer, and 
the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold on every part, in 
which was the golden urn that contained the manna, and the 
rod of Aaron which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 
Over it, also, were the Cherubim of glory, overshadowing the 
mercy-seat. Of these things, it is not necessary, at present, 
particularly to speak. 

Now these being thus prepared, the priests performing 
the services entered. continually into the outer tabernacle. 
But into the inner one, only the high priest [entered], once 
in each year, not without blood, which he presented for him- 
self and for the sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit 
signified, that the way to the most holy place was not yet 
open, while the first tabernacle had a standing ; which hath 
been a type down to the present time, in which both oblations 
and sacrifices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish 
what is needed in regard to the conscience, for him who 
performeth the services ; [and all the] ordinances pertaining 
to the flesh, had respect only to meats, and drinks, and divers 
ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. But Christ 
being come, a high priest of future blessings, through a great- 
er and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, 
not of this [material] creation, | he entered once for all into 
the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of bullocks, 
but with his own blood, procuring eternal redemption. Now 
if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, cleanse in respect to the purification 
of the flesh, 1 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who 


by an eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 


22 


15 


18 
19 


HEBREWS IX. 15—26. 


purify our conscience from works which cause death, so that 
we may serve the living God ! 

On this account, also, he is the mediator of a new cove- 
nant, so that, his death being a ransom for the sins [com- 
mitted] under the former covenant, they who have been 
called might receive the promised blessing of the eternal in- 
heritance. For where there is a testament, it is necessary 
that the death of the testator should take place; because a 
testament is valid in respect to those only who are dead, see- 
ing it hath no force, while the testator is living. 

Hence, not even the first [covenant] was ratified with- 
out blood. For when all the commandment, according to 
the law, had been read by Moses to all the people, taking 
the blood of bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet 
wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all 
the ‘people, | saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant 
which God hath enjoined upon you.” The tabernacle, also, 
and likewise all the vessels for service, did he sprinkle in 
the same manner with blood. Indeed, almost every thing 
is required by the law to be purified by blood ; and with- 
out the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 

Since, then, the likenesses of heavenly things must needs 
be purified in- this matter, the heavenly things themselves 
[must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. For 
Christ did‘not enter into a sanctuary made with hands, which 
is only a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, that he 
might thenceforth appear before God for us. Yet not that 
he might frequently make an offering of himself, like the 


high priest who entereth into the sanctuary every year with 


26 blood not his own, 1 (for then he must needs have often suf- 


fered, since the foundation of the world); but now, at the 


HEBREWS IX. 27—X. 10. 98 





27 
28 


10 


close of this age, he hath once for all. made his appearance, 
in order that he might remove the punishment due to sin, by 
the sacrifice of himself. For since it is appointed unto men-to 
die but once, and after this [cometh] the jugdment; so Christ 
also, after having once for all made an offering of himself to 
bear the sins of many, will appear, at his second [coming}, 
without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who wait for 
him. 

Moreover, the law, which containeth a mere outline of 
future blessings, and not the complete image of these things, 
can never, by those yearly sacrifices which are continually 
offered, fully accomplish what is needed for those who ap- 
proach [the altar]. For if it could, then would not these 
offerings have ceased, because the worshippers, once for all 
made clean, would no longer have been conscious of sins? 
Ona the contrary, by these [sacrifices] yearly remembrance 
is made of sin. 

And truly, it is impossible that the blood of bulls and 
goats should take away sin. Wherefore, [Christ], entering 
into the world, saith, “‘ Sacrifice and oblation thou desirest 
not, but a body hast thou prepared -for me ; in whole burnt 
offerings and [offerings] for sin thou hast no pleasure. Then 
said I, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy will; (in the volume 
of the book it is written concerning me).” | When he saith, 
in the first place, ‘ Sacrifice and oblation, and whole burnt 
offerings and [offerings] for sin, thou desirest not, nor hast 
pleasure in them,” (which are presented according to the 
law) ; | [and] then saith, “ Lo! I come to do thy will;” he 
abolisheth the first, that he may establish the second. By 
this will, expiation is made for us, through the offering of the 
body of Jesus Christ once for all. 


13 
14 


15 
16 


17 
18 


19 


20 
21 
22 


23 


24 


25 


HEBREWS X. 11-25. 





Now every priest standeth, performing daily service, and 
oftentimes presenting the same sacrifices which can never 
take away sin; but this one, having once offered a perpetual 
sacrifice for sin, sat down at the right hand of God, 1 thence- 
forth waiting until his enemies be made his footstool. By 
one offering, then, he hath fully accomplished, forever, what 
was needed by those for whom expiation is made. 

Moreover, the Holy Spirit also testifieth this to us; for 
after saying, | ‘‘ This is the covenant which I will make with 
them, after those days, saith the Lord, I will write my 
laws upon their hearts, and engrave them upon their minds,” 
then [he saith], “Their sins and their iniquities will I re- 
member no more.” But where there is remission of these, 


there is no more offering for sin. 


Exhortation to perseverance, from a consideration of the faithfulness of God, of the 
severe doom of apostates, and of the sufferings which the Hebrew Christians had already 
endured for the sake of religion. 


Hiavine then, brethren, free access to the sanctuary, 
by the blood of Jesus, in a new and living way, | which he 
hath consecrated through the vail, (that is, his flesh); and 
[having] also a high priest over the house of God; let us 
approach in full confidence, with a true heart, being purified 
as to our hearts from.a consciousness of evil. Being cleans- 
ed, also, as to our bodies, with pure water, let.us hold fast 
without wavering the hope which we profess ; for faithful is 
he who hath promised. Let us, moreover, attentively regard 
one another, for the sake of exciting to love and good works ; 
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, (as the 
custom of some is), but admonishing [one another]; and 
this so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 


26 


27 


28 
29 


30 


31 


32 


34 


39 


36 


37 
38 


39 


id ’ * 
HEBREWS X. 26—39. 25 


Moreover, should we voluntarily sin, after having receiv- 
ed the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more 
sacrifice for sin; but a certain fearful expectation of punish- 
ment, yea, of fiery indignation which will consume the adver- 
saries. Whosoever transgressed the law of Moses, suffered 
death without mercy, in case of two or three witnesses; of 
how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be counted 
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and 
regarded the blood of the covenant by which he hath been 
consecrated as unclean, and done despite to the Spirit of 
grace! Surely we know him, who hath said, “ Vengeance is 
mine, I will render it,” saith the Lord; and again, “The 
Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into 
the hands of the living God. 

Call to mind, now, the former days, in which, after ye 
were enlightened, ye endured a great contest with suffer- 
ings; partly because ye were made a public spectacle both by 
reproaches and afilictions, and partly because ye had sympa- 
thy with those who were thus treated. For ye did truly 
sympathize with those who were prisoners, and cheerfully 
suffer the plundering of your own substance, knowing that 
ye have for yourselves a better possession in heaven, yea, 
one which is enduring. Cast not away, then, your confidence, 
which will obtain a great reward. 

Ye have need, it is true, of patient waiting, in order that 
when ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the 
promised blessing. Yeta very little while, nevertheless, and 
‘he who is coming will come, and’ will not delay.” “The 
just,” also, “shall live by faith ;” but, “If any man draw 
back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.” We, however, are 
not of those who draw back unto destruction; but of those 


who believe unto the salvation of the soul. 
VOL. II. 4 


w 7 


26 HEBREWS XI. 1—12. 





Deseription of faith, and of the effects of it in respect to the saints of ancient times. 
XI. Now faith is confidence in respect to things hoped for, 

2 [and] convincing evidence of things not seen. On account 
of this, moreover, the ancients obtained commendation. 

3 By faith we perceive, that the worlds were formed by 
the word of God, so that the things which are seen, were not 
made from those which do appear. 

4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than 
Cain, on account of which he was commended as righteous, 
God himself bestowing commendation upon his oblations ; 

* and by the same, though dead, he still speaketh. 

5 By faith Enoch was translated, without seeing death, and 
“he was no more found, because God had translated him.” 
He is commended, also, as “having pleased God,” before 

6 his translation. But without faith, it is impossible to please 
him ; for he who cometh unto God, must believe that he is, 
and that he will reward those who seek him. 

7 By faith Noah, being divinely admonished respecting the 
future, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety of his 
household, by which he condemned the world, and obtained 
the justification which is by faith. 

8 By faith Abraham obeyed, when called to go forth unto 

the place which he was to receive for a possession; yea, 

9 he went forth not knowing whither he was going. By faith 
he sojourned in the land of promise, while it belonged to 
strangers, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were 

10 heirs of the same promise; for he expected a city which 
11 hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By 
faith, also, Sarah herself received the power of conception, 
and this beyond the customary season of life, inasmuch as 
12 she counted him to be faithful who had promised. Where- 





13 


14 
15 


16 


* é 


HEBREWS XI. 13—25, s 27 








fore there sprang, even from one who was dead too as to 
these things, [a seed] like the stars of heaven for multitude, 
and like the sand on the shore of the sea which cannot be 
numbered. 

These all died in faith, not having received the promised 
blessings; but seeing them afar off, and hailing. them with 
joy, they professed themselves to be strangers and sojourners 
on the earth. Now they who thus profess, shew that they 
are in quest of a country; for if they had cherished the re- 
membrance of that from which they came, they had oppor- 
tunity to return thither. But now they were desirous of a 
better [country], that is, of a heavenly one. Wherefore God 
is not ashamed of them, [nor] to be called their God ; for he 
hath prepared a city for them. 

By faith Abraham, when put to trial, made an offering of 
Isaac ; yea, he who had received the promises made an of- 
fering of his only Son ; unto whom it had been said, “ After 
Isaac shall thy seed be named ;” counting that God was able 
to raise him even from the dead, whence also, comparatively 
[speaking], he obtained him. 

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, in regard to the 
future. By faith Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of 
Joseph’s sons, and bowed himself upon the top of his staff. 
By faith Joseph, at the close of life, made mention of the 
departure of the children of Israel [from Egypt], and gave 
commandment respecting his own bones. 

By faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three 
months, by his parents, because they saw that he was a good- 
ly child, and did not fear the king’s commandment. By faith 
Moses, when arrived at mature age, refused to be called the 
Son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 1 choosing rather to suffer afflic- 


‘tion with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of 


28 


-* ¢ » 
‘ = 4 
HEBREWS XI. 26—39. 





26 
27 


28 
29 
30 


31 


32 
30 


34 


35 


36 
37 


38 


39 


sin for a season; counting reproach, such as Christ en- 
dured, to be greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt ; 
for he had respect toa state of reward. By faith he left 
Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king ; for he continued 
stedfast, as one who sceth him that is invisible. By faith he 
observed the passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that 
he who destroyed the first born might not touch them. 

By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as on dry 
land; which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. 
By faith the walls-of Jericho fell down, after they had been 
compassed about for seven days. 

By faith Rahab, the harlot, having entertained the spies 
in a friendly manner, perished not with the unbelieving. 

- And what shall I say more? For time would fail me, 
should I tell of Gideon, of Barak also, and Sampson, and 
Jephtha, of David too, and Samuel, and the prophets ; who, 
through faith, subdued kingdoms, executed justice, obtained 
promised blessings, stopped the mouths of lions, | quenched 
the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were 
made strong from a state of infirmity, became mighty in war, 
overthrew the armies of foreigners. _Women recovered their 
dead by a resurrection. Some were tortured, not accepting 
deliverance, in order that they might attain to a better resur- 
rection. Others were tried by mockings and scourges, and 
also by bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they 
were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the 
murderous sword, they went about in sheep-skins and goat- 
skins, suffering want, afflicted, injuriously treated, | (of whom 
the world was not worthy), wandering around in deserts and 
mountains, in caves also and dens of the earth. 

All these, moreover, who are commended on account of 
their faith, did not receive the promised blessing ; God hav- 


pe 


f 


HEBREWS XII. 1—11. 29 





XI. 


10 


11 


ing provided some better thing for us, so that without us they 


could not obtain a full accomplishment of what was needed. 


Encouragement fo persevere. Trials must not dishearten, for God sends them in kind- 
ness to his children. The gospel holds out more that is cheering and encouraging, than 
the law. The voice of its author must not be slighted. 


SINCE now we are encompassed by so great a multitude of 
witnesses, laying aside every incumbrance, and especially the 
sin which easily besetteth us, let us run with perseverance the 
race which is set before us; looking unto Jesus, the author 


and perfecter of our faith, who, on account of the joy set be- 


fore him, endured the cross, not regarding shame, and hath 


sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 

Consider, now, him who endured such opposition against 
himself from sinners, lest becoming discouraged in your minds 
ye grow weary. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, in your 
struggle against sin. And have ye forgotten the exhortation, 
which is addressed to you as children, ‘* My son, do not slight 
the chastenings of the Lord, nor be disheartened when re- 
proved by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, 
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth’” If ye endure 
chastisement, God is .dealing with you as children ; for what 
son is there, whom his father does not chasten? But if ye 
are without chastisement, of which all [children] are partak- 
ers, then are ye bastards and not sons. 

Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, who have 
chastened us, and we have yielded them reverence ; shall we 
not much more yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, 
that we may live? They, indeed, chastened us for a little 
while, according to their own pleasure ; but he, for our good, 
that we might be made partakers of his holiness. Now all 
chastening seemeth, for the present, not to be matter of Joys 
but of grief; yet afterwards, it yieldeth the happy fruits of 
righteousness, to those who are exercised thereby. 


° a” * "e , 
30 HEBREWS XIlI.-12—26. 
12 Wherefore, “ Strengthen the weak hands and the feeble 


13 knees,” | and “ Make plain the paths for your feet,” so that 
what is lame may not be wrenched, but rather healed. 
14 Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without 
15 which no man shall see the Lord. See to it, that no one 
fail of the favour of God ; that no root of bitterness spring up 
16 and trouble you, and many be defiled thereby. Leet there be 
no fornicator, nor profane person, like Esau, who for one 
17 morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know, that when 
he was afterwards desirous to obtain the blessing, it was re- 
fused ; yea, he found no place for a change of mind [in his 
father], although he sought for it with tears. 
18 Moreover, ye are not come to the mount which could be 
touched, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and dark- 
19 ness, and tempest ; nor to the sound of the trumpet, and the 
voice of commands, the hearers of which refused that another 
20 word should be added to them; (for they could not endure 
the admonition, ‘‘ If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall 
2 
22 said, “I fear and tremble) :” but ye are come to mount Zion ; 
and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem ; 


—_ 


be stoned ;” and—so terrible was the sight—even Moses 


and to an innumerable,company, the joyful host of angels ; 

23 and to the assembly of the first-born, enrolled in heaven ; and 

to the Judge, the God of all; and to the spirits of the just, 

24 who have obtained their final reward ; and to the mediator of 
the new covenant, Jesus; and to the blood of sprinkling, 
which speaketh better things than [the blood of ] Abel. 

25 Take heed, that ye turn not away from him, who speak- 
eth to you; forif they did not escape, who turned away from 
him who warned them on earth, much more shall we [not 
escape,] if we slight him who [warneth us] from heaven. 


26 His voice then shook the earth ; but now it is promised, say- 


f=?) 


ww ~~ =_ =. 
%, ee. 
; : 


* 7 
* 
, 


HEBREWS XII. 27—Xill. 11. Bl 





ing, ‘ Yet once more, I will shake not only the earth, but 
27 heaven also.” Now this “ Yet once more,” denotes a remov- 
ing of the things which are shaken, as of created things, in 
order that the things which are not shaken may remain. 
28 Wherefore, having obtained a kingdom which cannot be 
shaken, let us manifest gratitude, (by which we may serve 
29 God acceptably), with reverence and godly fear. For our 


* God is a consuming fire.” 


Various practical directions and cautions. Closes with affectionate requests and salu- 
tations. 


XIII. Ler brotherly love continue. Forget not hospitality ; 
3 for by this, some have entertained angels unawares. Re- 
member those who are in bonds, as if ye yourselves were fel- 
low-prisoners ; those who are suffering evil, as being your- 

4 selves yet in the body. Let marriage be honourable among 
all, and the bed undefiled ; for whoremongers and adulterers 

5 God will judge. Let your conduct be free from covetous- 
ness, and be contented with what ye possess. For he hath 


> so that we 


6 said, ‘‘ I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee ;’ 
may boldly say, “ The Lord is my helper, and I will not be 
afraid. What can man do to me 2” 

- Remember your leaders, who have spoken unto you the 
word of God; and attentively considering the end of their 

8 manner of life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, 

9. yesterday, to-day, and forever. Be not carried hither and 
thither by diverse and strange doctrines; for it is good that 
the heart should be confirmed by grace, and not by meats, 
by which those have not been profited, who have been occu- 

10 pied therewith. We have an altar, of which they have no 
right to eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. 
11 Moreover, the bodies of those animals, whose blood was 


carried into the sanctuary as a sin-offering by the high priest, 


32 


12 


15 


14 
15 


HEBREWS XIIl. 12—25. 





were burned without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus also, that 
he miguneniace expiation for the people by his own blood, 
suffered without the gate. Let us, then, go forth to him with- 


out the camp, bearing reproaches like his ; for here we have 


no abiding city, but are seeking for one yet future. By him, 
x 


_ therefore, let us continually present to God the sacrifice of 


16 
1 


J 


18 
19 


21 


22 


23 


24 
25 


praise, that is, the fruit of our lips ascribing praise to his name. 

Forget not kindness, also, and liberality ; for with such 
sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey your leaders, and be 
subject to them ; for they watch over your souls, as those who 
must give an account. [So obey], that they may do this with 
joy, and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable to you. 

Pray for us; for we trust that we have a good conscience, 
being desirous in all things to demean ourselves uprightly. I 
make this request, also, the more earnestly, in order that I 
may speedily be restored to you. 

Now may the God of peace, that raised from the dead 
our Lord Jesus, (who by the blood of an everlasting covenant 
has become the great Shepherd of the sheep), 1 prepare you 
for every good work, that ye may do his will; working in you 
that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, 
to whom be glory forever and ever! Amen. 


Moreover, I beseech you, brethren, to bear with this word 


of exhortation ; for | have written briefly to you. 


- Know ye, that our brother Timothy is sent away ; with 
whom, if he return speedily, I shall. visit you. 

Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They of Italy 
salute you. Grace be with you all! Amen. 


COMMENTARY. 


GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


Tue writer of this epistle is a Hebrew, and addresses his He- 
brew brethren, who had made a profession of the Christian reli- 
gion. Nothing can be plainer, than that those addressed are consid- 
ered as being in danger of apostasy from that religion. ‘To warn 
them against this danger, is the principal object of our epistle. In 
order to do this, the writer proceeds to lay before them the aggra- 
vated guilt, and the awful doom, of those who make defection from 
Christianity ; to direct their views towards that crown of glory 
which fadeth not away, and which is reserved in heaven for all who 
persevere, even to the end of life, in their fidelity to Christ; to 
put them on their guard against the various enticements of sin, 
which might allure them from the path of Christian duty ; and 
especially to guard them against relapsing into superstitious views, 
respecting the importance and necessity of the ceremonial rites and 
sacrifices of the Levitical institutions, and against being induced 
by these to relax their confidence in Jesus, and in his atoning sa- 
crifice. 

It was these last sources of danger, to which the Hebrew Chris- 
tians were particularly exposed. Nothing could well be more mag- 
nificent and imposing, than the temple worship as practised by the 
Jews at that time. The temple, built after their return from the 
captivity, was not, indeed, so rich in ornament as that which Solo- 
mon had built. But it had, at a vast expense, been greatly extend- 
ed and beautified by Herod. It was regarded by all Jews, as the 
peculiar dwelling place of Jehovahthe only one in which he 
deigned to manifest himself on earth. The Jewish nation, also, 
habitually regarded themselves, as the only one to whom God had 
made a special revelation. The worship, practised in the temple, 

VOL, II. 5 


34 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 








had been instituted by Moses, under divine guidance, and continu- 
ed, with but partial interruptions, for about 1500 years. All the 
exterior of this worship was adapted to sirike the eye, and impress 
the mind, of the beholder. ‘The awfulness of the place in which it 
was celebrated ; the magnificent costume of the priests; the spa- 
cious and lofty apartment in which they officiated ; the solemn part 
which he who offered any sacrifice was himself called to perform ; 
above all, the apprehension that full pardon for sin and reconcilia- 
tion to God were obtained by the rites and offerings which the 
Jaw prescribed ; contributed to make deep and lasting impressions 
on the mind of all Hebrews, who seriously exercised their thoughts 
on the subject of religion, and paid their devotions in the temple. 
All their education, from the first dawning of the youthful mind, 
had a direct tendency to confirm and strengthen these impressions. 
Never was a nation more enthusiastically attached to its customs, 
rites, and country, than were the Jews. ‘They looked abroad upon 
other nations, as outcasts front God, and unworthy of his paternal 
kindness and blessing. 

The New Testament is full of evidence, adapted to shew the 
correctness of this statement. The disputes which the extension 
of Christian privileges to the Gentiles occasioned, among the first 
Jewish converts ; the reluctance with which the former were ad- 
mitted to participate in them ; and the repeated, violent, and long 
protracted opposition that was made to abandoning the peculiar rites 
of the Mosaic institutions; all contribute to evince, how deeply en- 
graven upon the mind of every Jew was the impression, that the 
laws of Moses were never to be changed, and that the Messiah him- 
self was rather to restore andsmodify, than to repeal them. 

In such a state of mind had the Christian converts once been, 
whom the writer of our epistle addressed. What wonder, now, if 
they were exposed from this quarter to be shaken in their attach- 
ment to the new religion which they had professed, and which con- 
fessedly gave up all confidence in the religious rites of the Leviti- 
cal institutions ! Temptations from without also assailed them. 
Their unbelieving Hebrew brethren argued with them; opposed 
them; ridiculed them; made*powerful appeals to all the feelings 
with which their birth, education, and former worship had inspir- 
ed them ; persecuted them ; traduced them to heathen magistrates ; 
and excommunicated them. They suffered the loss of property, 


‘ 


* 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 35 


and of liberty. Their lives were threatened. The coming of 
Christ, which they had supposed would speedily take place for their 
deliverance, was delayed. How could it be, that human frailty, 
joined with former prejudices and present sufferings, should not 
have a dangerous influence upon them ? 

In this state the apostle saw them to be, and set himself about 
the important and difficult work of correcting their errors, and en- 
couraging their desponding minds. How was this to be done, 
with the greatest probability of success? Plainly, arguments and 
considerations, of such a nature as were best adapted to meet the 
difficulties with which they were contending, were those to which 
he would most readily resort. And throughout the whole epistle, 
it is manifest that he has done this, with consummate skill, judg- 
ment, and force. 

As the greatest of all the dangers to which the Hebrew converts 
were exposed, was that which resulted from their former religious 
attachments and prejudices, excited and augmented, as they daily 
were, by the efforts of their unbelieving Jewish brethren; so the 
writer of our epistle employs his principal force, in order to pre- 
clude or avert thisdanger. Other topics are subordinate with him. 
Although they are often touched upon, and with great skill and 
power, yet they are so mterwoven with the main object before him, 
that they are in a measure concealed from the first view of a hasty 
reader. 

The general plan of the epistle may be briefly represented. It 
consists in a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and in 
pointing out the various grounds of preference which belong to the 
new. From this superiority of the new dispensation various ar- 
guments are deduced, in order to shew the importance of cleaving 
to the Christian profession, instead of reverting back to Judaism, 
which could not now be the means of saving those who embraced 
it. Considerations of such a nature are repeated, as often as the com- 
parisons introduced afford occasion for them. This accouuts for 
the repetition of hortatory addresses, so often found in our epistle. - 

The Jews gloried in their dispensation, because angels had 
been employed as mediators of it, when the law was given at S$ 
nai. In their view, this stamped a high and heavenly honour upon 
it. Our author does not attack their views of this subject, but he 
commences his epistle by shewing that Christ, the mediator and 


36 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 





head of the new dispensation, as it regards his name, his rank, his 
dominion, his creative and eternal power, is superior to the angels, 
1: 1—14. On this ground, then, Christianity may claim a prece- 
dence ; and hence he exhorts them to give their most earnest at- 
tention to it, 2: 1—4. 

Nor can they object to the superiority of the Messiah, that he 
possessed a human nature, while the angels are spiritual and heaven- 
ly beings. For in his human nature he is Lord of the universe, 2: 
5—10. It was this nature, too, which gave him a nearer and 
more endearing sympathy with his followers; and by taking this 
upon him, he was enabled to make an expiatory offering for sin by 
his death ; so that he is now fitted not only to exercise compassion 
toward men, but to save them from the bondage of sin, and from 
its condemning power, 2: 11--18. 

Having thus disposed of this topic, he next proceeds to com- 
pare Jesus, the head of the new dispensation, with Moses the head 
of the ancient one. Like Moses, he was set over the house of God, 
and entrusted with it, and was faithful to his trust. But the hon- 
our due to Jesus is as much more than that due to Moses, as the 
builder of a house is worthy of more honour than the house itself. 
Christ too was set over God’s house as a Son; but Moses only as a 
servant, 3: 1—6. 

If now the Israelites of old were solemnly admonished to heark- 
en to the precepts given under the Mosaic dispensation ; then sure- 
ly believers in Christ may be more solemnly urged, to beware of 
disobedience to his injunctions, 3: 7—19. And this warning holds 
good, and is applicable in all respects, because the rest which was 
promised to believers in anciént times, and was lost through unbe- 
lief, is still proffered to all who believe in Jesus and persevere in 
their profession, and only to believers, 4: 1--10. Awful commina- 
tion is indeed still uttered against those who are guilty of apostasy, 
4: 11—13. 

Thus much for the comparison of Christ with Moses. Next, 
the writer proceeds to compare Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish 
priesthood, and particularly with the high priest, the most dignified 
of all who were invested with the sacerdotal office. 

He first introduces Christ as a compassionate high priest, and 
exalted to the highest dignity in the heavens, 4: 14-16. Next, 
he states the various things which are attached to the priesthood, 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. oT 





as existing among the sons of Levi. (1) A high priest must pre- 
sent oblations and sacrifices, 5: 1. (2) He must be compassionate 
and sympathetic towards others, and especially so, as he is himself 
frail and erring, 5: 2, 3. (3) He must be appointed of God to this 
office, 5: 4. 

In all these respects, he now goes on to make a comparison of 
Jesus, the high priest of Christianity, and to shew his superiority. 
He shews, 

First, that Christ was divinely appointed a priest, and that of 
the highest order, 5: 5, 6. 

Next, he shews that Christ our great high priest was compass- 
ed with human infirmity, like other priests, so that, like them, he 
was fitted to exercise compassionate sympathy, 5: 7,8. But after 
he had suffered, he was raised to glory and became a high priest 
of the most exalted order, i. e. of the order of Melchisedek, 5: 
9, 10. 

The difficulty of the subject now suggested, affords an occasion 
for the writer to advert to the state of religious ignorance, in which 
those were whom he addressed, 5: 11-—-14; to exhort them to come 
out of it, and to warn them against the fearful danger that would 
result from not doing so, 6: 1—8. 'To this he subjoins commenda- 
tion as to some things, and powerful motives of encouragement, 6: 
9-—20. 

He now resumes the subject of Melchisedek ; shews the supe- 
riority of his priesthood over that of the sons of Levi, 7: 1—10; 
and then argues that Christ, who was a perpetual priest of the 
like order with Melchisedek, must of course be superior to the 
Jewish priests, 7: 11—25. 

Christ too, as high priest, differed in one important respect from 
other priests, viz. in that he needed no sacrifice for himself, as an 
erring, sinful man, like the sons of Levi, but was sinless and perfect, 
yea, even exalted to a state of supreme glory, 7: 26—28. 

The great object, however, at which the writer is going to aim 
in the sequel of his epistle, is, to shew that the high priest of Chris- 
tianity officiates in heaven for his followers, 8: 1,2. The Jewish 
priests perform their functions in a temple, which is merely an im- 
age of the heavenly one, 8: 3--6. 

The new covenant, of which Jesus is mediator, is altogether 
superior, also, to the old, 8: 6-13. The ordinances and appa- 


38 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS 





ratus of service attached to this, were all mere types of heavenly 
things, 9: 1—10. The services themselves were imperfect, as to 
the end attained by them, since they accomplished nothing more 
than external purification ; but the blood of Christ sanctifies inter- 
nally, and procures eternal redemption and an everlasting inheri- 
tance, for all the chosen of God in every age of the world, 9: 11—15. 

The new testament, which gives an inheritance to the people of 
God, was sanctioned by the death of Jesus, 9:15. Such is the 
custom in regard to testaments, 9: 16,17. Asa symbol of this, 
even the first covenant, (dca@2x), with all the apparatus attached 
to it, was sanctioned by blood, i. e. the emblem of death, 9: 18 
—22. If the earthly sanctuary was thus consecrated, then the 
heavenly one must be so, by a sacrifice ofa still higher nature, 9: 
23, 24. Sacrifices in the earthly temple must be often repeated ; 
but the sacrifice of Christ did, once for all, accomplish the great 
purposés for which it was offered, 9: 24—28. 

Indeed, no legal sacrifices could make any real atonement for 
sin, 10: 1—4. Therefore Christ voluntarily proffered himself as 
a sin offering, entirely and forever to effect this, 10: 5—18, 

Thus is completed the comparison of Christ, and of his func- 
tions as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, with the Jewish priests 
and their functions in the earthly tabernacle. In all respects Jesus 
the great high priest of the Christian religion, appears greatly su- 
perior. 

The writer now proceeds to various bold and powerful exhorta- 
tions, mixed with awful warnings against defection from the Chris- 
tian religion, 10: 19—31. He sets before them the effects of per- 
severing faith in the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished 
worthies, 11: 1—49. ‘This he follows up with continued exhorta- 
tions, and encouragements, and warnings, 12: 1—29; and then 
closes his epistle with divers practical directions, cautions, and sal- 
utations, 13: 1-—25. 

Such is the brief view of the course of thought and reasoning 
in our epistle. It is plain that there dre three great points of com- 
parison: in it, which constitute the main object at which the writer 
aims, in order that he may shew the superiority of Christianity over 
Judaism. 

I. The superiority of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, 
‘over angels who were employed as mediators, when the old cove- 
nant was established, Chap. 1. 1. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 39 


——_ 


II. The superiority of Christ, the head of the new dispensation, 
over Moses the head of the old, Chap. ur. 1v. 

111. The superiority of Christ as high priest of the new dis- 
pensation, and of the services which he performs, over the priest- 
hood of the Mosaic institution, and all the services which were ap- 
propriate to their office, 5: 1—10: 18. 

Exhortations, warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, are in- 
termixed in some manner with the main discussions, ; e. g. 2: 1—4, 
3: 1. 3: 7—4: 16. 4: 11—6:20; but from 10: 19 to the end of the 
epistle, nearly all is of the nature just described ; so that about 
one half of the epistle is of a parenetical or hortatory nature. 

In judging of the relevancy and importance of the subjects dis- 
cussed in our epistle, it is very plain, that we are not to make up 
an opinion, deduced merely from viewing the present necessities 
and condition of Christians. We were not born Jews, nor educated 
as such. We have none of their prejudices, peculiar sympathies, 
temptations, and trials. What was adapted to them, in the days 
of Paul, and under the circumstances above described; nay, what 
was absolutely indispensable for their instruction, reproof, and con- 
firmation ; may, in many respects, be scarcely appropriate to us, 
in our condition and circumstances. Such is indeed the fact, in 
regard to many of the things introduced into the epistle to the He- 
brews; as I-shall have occasion hereafter repeatedly to notice. 
But who, that judges with any good degree of candour and fair- 
ness, would ever think of bringing it as an accusation against our 
author, that he has inserted in his epistle, that which was altogeth- 
er appropriate to those whom he addressed, although it may not, 
and does not, have an equal bearing upon all times and nations? 
Surely, the last ground of just accusation which can be advanced 
against any writer, is, that ‘he has written in a manner peculiarly 
adapted to accomplish the end for which he wrote.’ In what a dif- 
ferent plight would the world of authors be, if all of them were 
justly liable to such an imputation ! 

Of necessity, now, many things addressed to the Jews of Paul’s 
day, are comparatively inapplicable to us. So far, however, as our 
circumstances agree with theirs in any respect, just so far the spir- 
it of what was said to them will apply to us. So far as what was ° 
said to them was founded in general Christian truths and princi- 
ples, just so far we may be instructed and guided by it. Conse- 





40 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS, ETC. 





quently, as it must follow from these positions, the epistle, while 
it contains many things appropriate to the Hebrews of early times, 
also contains many which can never cease to interest the church 
of God, while Christianity exists in the world. 

These general views may serve to aid the critical student, in 
commencing the exegetical study of our epistle. ‘The more partic- 
ular detail of what is here hinted, is reserved for the introduc- 
tions to various parts of the epistle, which are inserted, pro re 
natd, in the body of the commentary which follows. 


COMMENTARY. 





cCoNTENTs or cuapTers I. 1 —II. 4. 


The object of the writer being to commend Christianity to those whom he addressed, in 
such a manner as to prevent defection from this religion; he begins by setting forth Christ 
as the author of the new revelation which God had made to men, 1:1. He then touches upon 
the dignity of his office; he is Lord of the universe; which indeed he also created, 1:2. He 
is the true image of God, and the representative of his glory and perfections to men ; he is en- 
dowed with sovereign power; and having made atonement for the sins of men, he is exalted 
to the highest majesty in the heavens, 1:3. This mediator of the new dispensation is exalted 
above angels, who were the mediators of the ancient one. His name, SON, is more exalted than 
theirs; for they have not been addressed, like him, with such an appellation, 1: 4,5. He is 
the object of worship by the angels; while they are employed only as the swift and ready mes- 
sengers of God, 1:6,7. The King Messiah has an eternal and righteous dominion; and is el- 
evated, on account of his love of righteousness, to honour and happiness above all other kings, 
1:8, 9. Him, too, the sacred writer addresses, as the creator of the heavens and the earth, 
and as immutable and imperishable, 1: 10—12. But no exaltation to such dominion is con- 
ferred upon angels, 1:13; they are only ministerial agents, employed for the good of those, 
who are to be heirs of the salvation which Christ bestows, 1: 14. 

If such be the ‘dignity and elevation of the Messiah, then surely he may justly demand the 
attentive consideration of all which he addresses to his followers. Obedience to the ancient 
revelation was enforced by just and unavoidable penalties; how can the neglect of the new 
and more perfect one go unpunished? 2: 1,2. Especially must this be the case, since it was 
promulgated by Christ himself in person, and was confirmed, on the part of God, by a great 
variety of wondrous miracles, 2: 3, 4. 

Ld 


CHAP. I. 


‘H mo0¢ ‘EBgatovs énistody. See, on this title, Vol. I. §.10. 
p. 49. seq. 

1. Tlohuusows xai MOAVTOONHS, literally in various parts and 
in various ways. Of the Greek commentators, some give a different 
sense to each of the words; e. g. Theodoret, roAuu ee «) G—TES 
navrodanac oixovoulas onuaiver, tO OE TOAUTO 0 1 w G, tov Feiov 
éaraccav vo diegogor, i.e. xovpegors signifies the various dispensd- 

VOL. II. 6 


42 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. 











tions, and nodurgomms the diversity of divine visions. Theophy- 
lact interprets the words in question, by dvagogws xual modverdus, 
diversely, and in various ways. But Chrysostom expresses the sense 
of both words, by dvaqoomws simply. Modern commentators are di- 
vided in the same manner. The Greek idiom allows either mode of 
interpretation ; and precedents may be found for each. See Schleus- 
ner on the words; and compare Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 4. p. 331. 
V. 6. p- 667, ed. Potter. If the two words be construed separately, 
then zoAveoas should be interpreted as referring to the matter of 
ancient revelation, given in different parts and at different times, thus 
conveying the idea of the gradual development of truth in different 
ages and by different persons; and moAvreomwe¢ must be understood 
as indicating the various ways in which these revelations were com- 
municated, i, e. by dreams, visions, symbols, Urim and Thummim, 
prophetic ecstacy, etc. But if both words are regarded, as being 
used only to designate with intensity the variety of ancient revela- 
tions, (and such a mode of phraseology is very common both in the 
Greek and Hebrew Scriptures), then the whole may be paraphra- 
sed thus; ‘God, who in ancient times made communications, in 
many different ways, by the prophets to the fathers, hath etc.’ The 
word zoAuueges does not, of itself, signify sundry times; but still, 
the idea of various parts or portions, which it does properly sig- 
nify, may very naturally be understood as implying, diverse times at 
which, or occasions on which, the different parts of revelation were 
communicated ; or the idea of oduusoms may be simply that of 
repetition, so that often would well communicate the sense of it. 
Tn this way If have ventured to translate it. 

Of the two modes of itterpreting these words, I rather prefer 
that which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each. 
The weiter evidently designs to present an antithesis between the 
manner of the ancient and the Christian dispensation. This anti- 
thesis is rendered more striking, if we understand the first clause 
in the verse thus; ‘God, who in ancient times made communica- 
tions to the fathers by the prophets, in sundry parts and in various 
ways, has now made a revelation to us. by his Son;’ 1. e. he has 
completed the whole revelation, which, he intends to make under 
the new dispensation, by his Son,—by his Son only, and not by a 
long continued series of prophets, as of old. 'The apostles, and oth- 
er inspired writers of the New Testament, received their commu- 


} ‘ COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. 43 








ir an 
nications from the Son, who gave them the Holy Spirit, Matt. 11: 


27. comp. John 14: 26. 16: 135 and facts shew, that the Christian 
revelation was completed, during that generation who were cotem- 
_ porary with the Saviour, when he dwelt on earth. 

Fala, in ancient times; for communications by prophets to 
the Jews had ceased, from the time of Malachi and his cotempora- 
ries, i. e. for the space of about four hundred years. Hence, the 
writer avoids using an expression which would imply, that revela- 
tions had been continued down to the time then present. By ma- 
iat, he evidently means to designate the whole time, during which 
communications of the divine will were continued, under the former 
despensation. 

Aakioug most commonly designates oral communication. But 
since the writer here affirms, that God had spoken (AaA7joug) mo0dv- 
ToOaWMs, it must of course be understood, (as indeed it is often 
used), to designate the more general idea of communication made 
in any manner, by visions, symbols, etc, as well as by voices. 

Tois murgact, ancestors; see Wahl’s Lex. We might natu- 
rally expect that suv would be subjoined ; but Paul commonly uses 
the word mazégs¢ in the sense just noted, without the pronoun an- 
nexed. See Rom. 9: 5, 11:28. 15: 8. 

"Ev vorg xoognrees, by the prophets. The use of éy with the 
dative, instead of Ove with the genitive, is, frequent in the New 
Testament; as any one may see in Wahl’s Lexicon, éy no. 3. a. 
The frequent use of it, in this way, is Hebraism ; for év corresponds 
to the Hebrew zs, which is employed with great latitude of significa- 
tion, and in cases of the same nature as that in question; e. g. 
Hosea 1: 2, the word of the Lord by Hosea, ytim2. But an occa- 
sional use of éy in a similar way, by native Greek writers, may 
also be found; e. g. Thucyd. VII. 11, what has been done before, 
ye know év dhdoug modhaig éntotodats, by many other letéers. 

TIgoq7racs, in the language of the New Testament, means, not 
only those who predict future events, but all who were employed by 
God, as the medium of making religious communications of any kind 
to his people. 

"Ex’ goyarov tov rusgwv, in many copies, én’ goyaroy tov 
ajueoov. ‘The Seventy use both forms of expression, as a transla- 
tion of the Hebrew ava77 n°7nN; thus shewing that they were 


44 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. toe * 





regarded by them as synonymes. It is a matter of indifference, as 
to the sense of the text, which reading is adopted. 

The meaning of the phrase is best understood, from a compari- 
son of the corresponding expressions in Hebrew. In the Old Tes- 
tament, DY NINN, MAGN, 72777, and 7349N8 53°, are often 
employed synonymously ; ; and all of them to designate the general 
idea of hereafter, at a future time, in the sequel. Whether this future 
time be more or less remote, depends entirely on the context, and 
scope of the passage. See Gen. 49: 1. Num. 24:14. Deut. 4: 30. Prov. 
31:25. But C2: n°4MN, in particular, is used to denote the future 
period in which the Messiah (6 éo7ouevos) was to appear; Is. 2: 2. 
Hos. 3:5. Micah 4:1. Joel 3:1[2: 28], ja-24ns8. This phrase, (as 
it d seem from the usage in these places), early passed into 
a kind of technical designation of the time of the Messiah, or rather 
of the new dispensation under him. ‘Thus Rabbi Nachmanides, 
on Gen. 49: 1, says “ All our doctors agree, that 097277, N°INN 
means, the times of the Messiah.” That such a use of the phrase in 
question, was already an established one, in the time of out Saviour, 
is abundantly evident, from the frequency with which ai éoyarae 
ajueoaue is employed, in the New Testament, to designate the period 
of the Christian dispensation. Like other appellations, acquired in 
a similar way, (comp. Luke 7: 20), it continued to be employed, 
after the “last days,” i.e. the Christian dispensation, had commenc- 
ed; and it is employed to designate any part of the time which this 
dispensation comprises; being limited only by the context, in the 


_ same manner as the Hebrew n 7m, etc. as exhibited above. In 


John 6: 39, 40, 44, 54 and 1]: 24. é07arny 7uéoa is indeed used 
to denote the end of time, when the resurrection of the dead will 
take place.» But in each of these cases, LVAGTHGW OF aVaGTAGLS 
accompaiilies it, so as'to save all doubt in respect to its meaning. 
In all other cases, it designates the period of the new dispensation. 
Many synonymous expressions are also employed to designate the 
the same idea; e. g. 6 €67aT0$ ZuLQ03, vi EoZaTOL xaLgO!, 7 EOZaTH 
aoc, and v6regor xuLgol. 

The Jews, it is said, divided the periods of the world into 
min D>5on, the present age or world, i. e. the period of the Mosaic 
dispensation, and N27 D>4ym, the age or world to come, i. e. the 
time of the Messiah’s reign. The former is called, in the New 
Testament, 0 aéoiv 0UT0S, 0 vir uiwy TOU ZOGMOU TOUTOL, 0 aiaY O 


Ls 
6 


7 







COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. 45 





¢, 6 “uL00S sted and 6 aiwy; the latter, 6 aiov 6 uehhov 
—éoyourvos—éxeivos, ob aiwves of Enegyouevor, 7 Oinovpevn 7 
pédiovoa. ‘This latter class of expressions, thus understood, are 
equivalent to the phrases Zovaras 7juzout, Zoyatov 7ueour, ete. 

Such is the representation of Wahl, (on the word aéoy, in his 
Lexicon), of Brettschneider (Lex.), and of other critics, in regard 
to this subject. But that it is too definitely made, and therefore not 
in all respects well founded, is quite clear from the very authority to 
which Wahl refers; i. e. Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. sub voc. BDt3. The 
Rabbins certainly used =37 02> for mundus hic, mundus habitabilis ; 
also for mundus medius, i. e. the regions of the air, stars, firmament, 
ete; and for mundus supremus, i.e. of angels and spirits. It is “a 
ly certain, that they employed Nam D23> for mundus post resurr 
nem mortuorum, mundus animarum a corpore solutarum, as well as 
for the age of the Messiah. Buxtorf merely says, “ Quidam per 
8am ob4> intelligunt m2 nin7, dies Messiae.” ould seem 
then, that Wahl and Brettschneider have made -xcessive use 
of the supposed Rabbinic sense of the word ao. 

Be this, however, as it may; from the Old Testament usage 
we may easily make out, (as I have endeavoured to do), the sense 
of éx éozatov tov yuéowv. The phrase, in Heb. 1: 1, appears to 
mean, during the last dispensation, or, under the last period, viz. 
that of the Messiah. : 

Tovrewy, THESE last days, is as much as to say, ‘ The period in 
question has already commenced.’ 

‘Huty, to us, by a zoivwoes, i. e. a figure of speech, or mode of 
speaking, in which the writer joins himself with those whom he ad- 
dresses. The meaning is, to Christians, to the church ; not exclud- 
ing others, but intending still to designate, in this place, particu- 
larly himself and those to whom he wrote. So Luke uses gjuty for 
Christians, in chap. 1: 1; and Paul in like manner, often, in his 
epistles. “ 

“Ev vig, i. e. dt tov viot. So Chrysostom andyTheophylact ; 
for 2y here is used as above, in éy to1¢ agogyrats. That the ar- 
ticle would be added to viw here, if the phrase was gear ac- 
cording to the common usage of the Greek fgets ge and of the 
New Testament writers, is quite obvious; although I find, no of 
the modern commentators who take notice of it. In = ce 
with this principle, both Chrysostom and Theophylact supply it in 





—) 
46 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: I. 


their paraphrase, expressing the sense by due x00 viov. Afterall 
the rules which have been laid down respecting the insertion or 
omission of the article in Greek, and all the theories which have 
been advanced, he who investigates for himself, and is guided only 
by facts, will find not a little that is arbitrary in the actual use of 
it. The cases are certainly very numerous, where Greek writers 
insert or reject it at pleasure. What is this but an arbitrary use 
of it? Some very sensible remarks on this subject may be found, 
in Lawrence’s Remarks on our English Version. 

It is plain, in the present case, that vied is monadic ; that it 
designates one individual peculiarly distinguished ; and that the 
pronoun a@vrov is omitted after it; on all which accounts, (accord- 
ing to édeory), the article should be added. But all the Codices of 
the New Testament agree in omitting it. ‘The circumstance is in 
itself of but little importance ; still, as it has an important bearing 
upon Aeaaliebich respect the use of the article, it well deserves 
particular notice. 

Perhaps viq, in this case, may be employed as a kind of proper 
name, (just as we now use it); and on this account it omits the 
article, by a license usual in respect to proper names. 

Some distinguished commentators have maintained, that the 
sentiment of Heb. 1: 1, is in direet opposition to the opinion com- 
monly received by the Christian fathers, and still very generally 
_maintained, viz. that the Son of God made all the revelations to the 
ancient prophets ; and that all the ¢heophanies, mentioned in the 
Old Testament, are to be ascribed to the Logos. These commen- 
tators suppose their own views, in opposition to the’ sentiment of 
those fathers, to be confirmed by Heb. 2: 1—4; where the aggra- 
vated guilt of those who reject the gospel, which was revealed by 
the Son of God, is urged ; and the writer grounds the fact of its 
being aggravated, upon the assamption that the law, in ancient 
times, was spoken only by the mediation of angels. But still, 
though this r@é&soning seems to be satisfactory, at first view, it 
should be remembered that the writer is there, as well as in om @ 
}: 1, speakin f the Son of God as incarnate, as possessing “our 
nature and deg: us in it. In this manner he did not address 
the ¢hureh, in ancient times ;-and the emphasis may lie upon this 
circumstance. Comp. John 1: 14. For, that the Legos, or Christ 
in his divine nature, did make revelations to the ancient church, 


& 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 2. 47 





seems to be an obvious deduction, from John 12: 41. 1 Cor. 10: 9. 
10: 4, and other like passages. 

2. “Ov ZOnue xAnoovouor navtwy, whom he has constituted lord 
of all, i. e. of the universe. ”Oxx<, constituted, appointed, ordain- 
ed; see Wahl on ridnyuc, no. 3. In the same sense the Greeks 
employ ridyjue. 

Kinoovouor, lord, possessor, in accordance with the Heb. 
idiom. In classic Greek, xAnjeovomos is (1) One who acquires any 
thing by lot ; (2) One who inherits any thing after the death of the 
possessor. The Son inherited the universe in neither of these 
ways; consequently zAjgovouog here is employed in the manner 
of the Hebrew 43, which means, to fake into possession in any 
manner, or simply, to acquire. To inherit is only a secondary 
sense of i>. The Latins employed haeres, ina sense like that 
here assigned to xAyoovouosg. Thus Justinian, Inst. IL. 19. § ult., 
Pro haerede gerere, est pro domino gerere ; veteres e1 
pro dominis appellabant. So Festus, Haeres apud— 
domino ponebatur. Comp. Gal. 4: 1. Acts 10: 36. 2:36. Ps. 89: 
27 [28]. John 17:10; which confirm the interpretation here given, 
as to the correctness of the sentiment which it conveys. 

"At ov, by whom. It is contended here, that dca is not limited 
to signify the instrumental cause (so called), but that it often desig- 
nates the principal cause. 'This is true ; see Wahl on dove, 1. c. 

"where both the classical and New Testament usage of dva, in this 
sense, is shewn. But there is still a possibility of the sense which 
Grotius gives it here, viz. on account of whom; see Wahl, no. 2. 
and to the instances there adduced of dv@ used with the genitive, 
and signifying on account of, add Rom. 5: 19 bis. 8: 3, and perhaps 
2 Cor. 9: 13 and 2 Pet. 1: 3, dsa dofyc. In all these cases, how- 
ever, dua does not properly denote the final cause or end for which 
a thing is done; but only a motive for doing it, an instrument as it 
were in bringing it about. To say, that the worlds were made on 
account of the Son, as the final end or object of them, would im- 
ply something more, or something different from saying, that they 
were made by him. The sense which Grotius puts upon dca can- 
not be defended by any examples sufficiently plain, and cogent 
enough to justify the admission of it. . 

Tous uiavags éndinos, he [i. e. 0] made the worlds, or the 
universe. So, beyond any reasonable doubt, ezcayveg is to be under- 






% 
48 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 3. 





stood in 11: 3, and in L Tim. 1: 17. The singular (ao) is not 
employed to designate world. The classical use of aiwy is (1) 
Age, period of time. (2) Age of man, time of life. Aidvag, then, 
is used here, (like 0549, 0172549, in the Chaldee and later Hebrew), 
for world, worlds, universe. Theodoret explains it as meaning, 
ages; and so others have since done. But what is the sense of the 
assertion, that God made the ages by his Son? If we understand 
this of the common periods of the life of man; or (with Theodoret) 
of the ages of the world; or of the Jewish and Christian dispensa- 
tions, with others ; what is it to the writer’s purpose to assert this, 
in a passage which is evidently designed to shew the exalted pre-em- 
inence of the Son of God? As to the sentiment conveyed by the 
interpretation which I have adopted, viz. ke made the worlds, it is 
confirmed by Eph. 3:9. Col. 1: 15—19. John 1: 3, 10. 1 Cor. 8: 
6. Heb. 1: 10. See Excursos I. II. 

8. ° Os av anatyaoue ris Oons xol yeouxtHO THS UnoGTAGEWS 
avrov. The ancient Greek commentators, and after them most 
of the modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature 
of Christ. An examination of the imagery which they present, is 
necessary, in order to developt their real meaning. 

"Anavyaoue means radiance, light flowing from a luminous 
body, and is a derivate of emarvyaso i. g. avyase, to shine, to emit 
splendour. Aoka, in classical Greek, means (1) Opinion, senti- 
ment, supposition, maxim. (2) Fame, honour, reputation. But in 
our text, it plainly means the same as the Hebrew 3532 often does, 
viz. splendour, brightness. Comp. Luke 2: 9. 9: 31. Acts 22: 11. 
7: 55. Matt. 6: 29. 1 Cor, 15: 41. ; 

Xaguxryo is-properly an engraving or stamping instrument, or, 
a person who engraves or stamps. But it is very commonly employ- 
ed for the figure itself, or image engraved or stamped, e. g. upon 
coins, stones, metal, wood, or wax. So our English version, ez- 
press image, i. e. image expressed or stamped. Hence, because 
the resemblance between the figure enstamped and the instrument 
by which it is enstamped, is so exact, yugax17g@ means also, exact 
image, resemblance, or delineation. . ® 

“Ynooracig, in the classical sense anciently attached to it, 
means (1) Foundation, substratum, substructio. (2) Steadfastness, 
courage. (3) Purpose, resolution, determination. (4) Substance, 
essence, being. In the sense of person, it first began to be used 






COMYENTARY ON HEB. 1: 8. 49 








by the Greek writers after the Arian controversy commenced. It 
was employed particularly in this way by Athanasius, in order that 
he might make a distinction between vvotu and Undaruocre, while 
he maintained that the persons (xgvowne) in the ‘Trinity were of 
one ovola, but yet were three ymooracsig. The sense of person, 
then, being attached to this word long after the New Testament 
was written, it cannot be properly assigned to the word here. It 
plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence. 

The nature of the imagery, presented by the two phrases in our 
verse, may be thus explained. If God be represented to us under 
the image of splendour, of a luminary, the source of light; then is 
Christ the radiance of that splendour, or the light emitted from that 
luminary. 'That is, as a luminous body becomes perceptible in 
consequence of the light radiated from it, so God has manifested or 
exhibited himself to us, in the person of his Son. To the same 
purpose, John says, ‘‘ No man hath seen God at any time; the on- 
ly begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath reveal- 
ed him,” John 1: 18. So again, “ He that hath seen me, hath 
seen the Father,” 14: 9; and again, “ He that seeth me, seeth him 
that sent me,’’ 12: 45. In Col. 1: 15, Christ is called “the image 
of the invisible God,” 1. e. he by whom the invisible God is, as it 
were, presented to our inspection. In him, God has exhibited to 
men the perfections of his character, i. e. has exhibited ray dokav 
avrov, which word is figuratively used to designate the divine per- 
fections. So2Cor. 4:6, doéy¢ tot Deov év agoowaw /yood Xoto- 
700, i.e. the divine perfections as displayed by Jesus Christ; a phrase 
of the like nature with that which I am endeavouring to explain. 

Again; if God be represented under the image of vadoraoce, 
substance, essence, then is Christ the developement of that substance 
to our view; he is the zmage, representation, or delineation of it. 
As an image upon a coin presents the exact lineaments of the stamp 
which made it; so does Christ present the yaoaxzr/jo of the Fa- 
ther, he presents us with his likeness, i. e. reveals to us, in his 
person and work, just and proper views of the perfections of the 
Father. So, the old Syriac version renders vmdotaorg avrod by 
oiZo2a!; i.e. his substance. 


"That both expressions are to be understood figuratively, is be- 
yond all doubt ; for God is not, in a literal sense, splendour or a 
luminous substance ; nor is his undoraoug, in itself considered, i. e. - 

VOL. I, | 7 


50 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 3. 


physically or metaphysically considered, capable of being represent- 
ed to our senses. 

Tn the opinion, that the verse now under consideration relates 
to the incarnate Messiah, and not to the Logos in his divine nature 
simply considered, I find that Scott and Beza concur, not to men- 
tion others of the most respectable commentators. See Excur- 
sus III. 

Diowy ... rH¢ Ovvapews wvrov, sustaining, i. e. guiding, man- 
aging, controlling, the universe by his own powerful word. So Chrys- 
ostom gévmr, touréore xuBEovarv, ta OLanintovtTa ovyzoatar, gov- 
erning, holding together that which is ready to fall asunder, or, pre- 
serving that which ts ready to perish. So Paul says of Christ, as 
eizov tov Geou, that he is before all things, xvi ta navra év aut 
ouviornue, Col. 1: 17. géowy, thus employed, corresponds to the 
Hebrew Nib, as used in Is. 46: 3. 66: 9, in the sense of cure, con- 
servo, to sustain and preserve, as a mother does her child. The 
Greeks sometimes joined gégecv and ayevy in the same phrase, in 
order to express the administration of affairs. Te mavie is a 
common expression in Greek, for the universe. 

To Ojnuare ryg Ovvenens avtov his own powerful word. Such 
a mode of expression is not, as Ernesti names it, properly Hebra- 
ism; for it is very common in all languages, although more fre- 
quent in the oriental than in the occidental tongues. _4vrov, sc. 
éautov (not auvrov) that is, by his own powerful word, viz. the word 
of the Son, and not by the word of God, as @vzov would mean. 
The meaning of the whole phrase is, ‘He directs and controls the 
universe by his omnipotent word.’ It seems to be evidently an ex- 
pression of the like nature*with “ God said, Let there be light and 
there was light, Gen. 1: 3;” also, “ He spake, and it was done; 
he commanded, and it stood fast, Ps. 33:9.” In other terms, The 
Son has the universe at the control of his mere word ; an expres- 
sion signifying omnipotent, irresistible control. But, inasmuch as 
the universe was created by him (verse 2), it surely cannot appear 
strange, that he who made it should control it. 

Ae éavrob...cdv duaoriay ruav, having by himself made expia- 
tion for our sins.. KoOaovoudg usually means purification; but in 
Hellenistic Greek, it is also employed for expiation; e. g. in Ex. 
29: 36, 30: 10, the Seventy use it for the Hebrew p25 5z, atone- 
ment, expiation. That xaPagcouov cannot be used here in the 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 4. 51 





simple sense of purification by moral means, such as doctrine, ete. 
is evident from its being joined with dv’ éavrov ; which is explain- 
ed in 2: 14, by dea rov Tavaron ; in 9: 12 » by Big tou tWiov aima- 
cog; and in 9: 26, by dva 17¢ Ovolag avtov. This last expression 
I regard as the full form, expressing what is elliptically expressed 
in our text by dv éduzou. 

After he had thus by the sacrifice of himself made expiation 
for sin, éxadcoer év dskea Tyg wEyakmovyns év VYyndois, he sat down 
at the right of tie majesty on high, i.e. of God-in the highest 
heavens, ovoavoi¢ being understood after vymdors ; or, of supreme 
majesty ; (see Wahl Lex. on ovgavos). The verb éxa@coe here 
corresponds to the Hebrew 333, which applied to God, and to 
kings, does not mean simply ¢o sit, but to sit enthroned, to sit on a 
throne; e. g. Ps. 2:4, and often. To sit on a throne, or, to sit at 
the right hand of one ona throne, implies here, commanding, ruling, 
judging. 

Meyaioouvns means, majesty, magnificence, NYIN, Di, 75935. 
Here it is the abstract (as grammarians say) used for the concrete, 
i. €. on the right hand of the majestic One, or the magnificent One, 
Viz. 255 TDN p32: So Liber Enochi, (Fabricit Cod. Pseudep. 
ME: p: ‘187), évantoy tH Oosns TAS meyakwourng. See Excur- 
sus IV. 

4. Tocovrm xositrwy .... Ovoma, being exalted as much above 
the angels, as he has obtained an appellation more honourable than 
they. Kosirtwy, praestantior, augustior, of higher rank or place, 
eminentior. I’vouevos, constituted, rendered, etc. It is here ap- 
plied to the elevation of the Son to the mediatorial throne, after 
his death. Avagogwregoy, more eminent, more distinguished ; nag 
auvrous, than they, i. e. the angels. JTwoa, after the comparative 
degree, appears to be peculiar to this heiikotes It makes of itself a 
comparative degree, as used in Rom. 1: 25. 14:5. Heb. 1: 9. 2: 
7. Kexdnoovounze, obtained, acquired, as in verse 2d. “Ovoua, 
either name, i. e. title as viog, or rank, dignity. Commentators are 
divided in opinion, respecting which of these meanings should be 
preferred. But the argument, in the sequel, shews that the title, 
SON, is the ground on which the superiority of Christ over the an- 
gels is proved. If it be objected that angels are also called sons ; 
and men too ; the answer is easy. No one individual, except Je- 
sus, is ever called, by way of eminence, THE Son of Giod, i. e. the 
Messiah, or the king of Israel, John 1: 49. 


52 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 5. 





The appeal is here made to Jewish readers of the Oid Testa- 
ment, who applied Ps. 2: 7, and 2 Sam. 7: 14, tothe Messiah. In 
such a sense as in these passages, namely one that imported su- 
preme dominion and authority, neither angels nor men were called 
sons of God. But Jesus bore this title, which, according to the 
Jewish Scriptures, was indicative of supreme dignity ; and conse- 
quently he had an appellation of a more exalted nature than that 
of the angels, who are servants (1: 14), not lords. 

5. Tiveyao.... yryévvyne. o&, for to which of the angels said 
he at any time, Tiou art my Son; this day have I begotien thee ? 
Teyévvnue o€ must of course be figuratively uuderstood. But 
how? In Ps. 11. the context shews that the expression here quoted 
has reference to Christ as king, as constituted king or lord over 
all; see vs. 6,8, etc. To beget, is metaphorical language suited 
to the name Son; but as Son here plainly means Messiah, or the 
anointed king, dropping the metaphor, we come of course to the 
meaning, constituted, made, appointed, or yevOMevo3 as above. 

In regard to ovjusevoy, which has been often construed as 
meaning, from eternity, Theodoret has plainly expressed its true 
sense 3 OV THY ccveoy Onkol yevynow, Ghka cAV TH YoOVM OuvE- 
Cevyuevny, it does not express iis eternal generation, but that which 
is connected with time. For surely Christ was. exalted to the me- 
diatorial throne in time, 1. e. after his resurrection; and such an 
exaltation is the subject of description, in the second Psalm. Such 
a view of the meaning the context also demands, where his ac- 
quired condition is the particular subject of comparison with the 
rank and condition of the angels. So Chrysostom, after quoting v. 
5, says, Tavra eiontae men €@g Tv Oaoxa, this is spoken concerning 
his human nature. 

Lye Eoomee Va eis vicy. In common Greek it would be, 
éyo Foopae muryng avrov....vi0g mov. The form of expression, 
OUT ele THOT EGO, corresponds altogether to the Hebrew 2N5 1; 
and joi ¢¢ viov, to 72> 7, 2 Sam. 7: 14, whence the quotation is 
taken. The term, Syn, seems here to designate one who should 
be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Son; and in parti- 
cular, one who should be an heir to the-throne of his Father. This 
same figurative expression, heirship, being heir, the writer has ap- 
plied to the Son in the context, vs. 2,4. Now as the angels are 
not entitled to such privileges, the appellation Son, (which implies 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 6. 53 





a right to them in this case), shews that he to whom it is applied, 
is elevated above the angels. And this is the position, which the 
argument in Heb. 1. is designed to establish. 

If we may credit Abarbanel, the ancient Jewish doctors held 
that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and 
the angels. However this may be, the apostle in applying this and 
the following quotations to the Messiah, must have supposed him- 
self addressing those, who would readily concede that. they ought 
to be thus applied. Otherwise, we cannot suppose that he could 
have regarded this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapt- 
ed to convince those to whom he wrote. 

6. “Orav 0€ madi .... diver, again also, when he bringeth his 
first begotten into the world, he saith; a passage replete with dif- 
ficulties. Does nadvy qualify efovyoyn? Or is it to be transpos- 
ed-thus, madi dé, Otay x. t.4.? Many contend for this trans- 
position ; and Abresch cites what he calls similar instances of a 
metathesis, in Acts 13:27. 1 Cor. 4:18. 2 Cor. 7:6. These, 
however, come short of establishing his position. Admitting the 
transposition in question, we must translate audvv, x. 7.4. by, 
again, i.e. in another passage of Scripture, when he introduces 
etc. But this transposition is unnecessary, even if the sense here 
given to madcy be retained ; for we may translate equally well, but 
when, in another place, he introduces, etc. One might translate a- 
dv here, (with Storr, Wahl, and others), on the other hand, on the 
contrary, i. e. God speaks in quite a different way to the angels, 
when he introduces his first begotten into the world, viz. instead 
of calling them sons, he commands them to worship kis Son. See 
- Wahl’s Lex. on meduv. So Schneider, meduv, im Gegentheile, (ex 
adverso), specially in composites, as makiugnuoas, contradictory, etc. 
There is no ground for the sneer with which Schulz treats Storr’s 
translation of nade by hingegen, i.e. é& évavrias. 

After all, however, I am more inclined to interpret madey here 
as meaning, again, i. e. something in addition to what had been 
already said or stated. But as the position, which the writer has 
given it, is somewhat different from that of the preceding xa maduy, 
(which commences the clause or assertion in which it stands), I 
suppose the writer means to convey the idea, by using 02 macy in 
the latter case, that what he is going to suggest is only additional 
matter, and not simply additional Scriptural quotation. Certain it 


54 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 6. 





is, that, on other occasions, where he cites several texts of Scrip- 
ture continuously, he uses xai maAcy in the same way before each 
citation; e. g. Heb. 2: 12, 13. The assertions of our author, (ac- 
cording to the views which I have of the use of dé xadcv here), 
would run thus, ‘ God declares in the Scritpture, that he has be- 
gotten the Messiah his Son ; and again, that he is his Father, and 
the Messiah his Son; and God has also said, (which shews the 
superiority of Christ over the angels), that all the angels must wor- 
ship him.’ In this way all is natural and easy. 

As another reason for translating as I have done, it may be ad- 
ded, that no direct antithesis, (between the declarations, that God 
had begotten the Messiah his Son, and that the latter was the Son 
of God the Father, contained in v. 5), is found in v. 6. This is a 
sufficient reason for avoiding here the translation which Storr, 
Wahl, and others, have given to aadey, viz. ex adverso, hingegen= 
é& évavtiag. I have no doubt that aa@dey may have, and sometimes 
has, such a meaning; but it is unnecessary here, and on the 
whole, it is an improbable one. 

Lisayayy %.t.4. Does this mean, to introduce to the world, 
in the same sense as we now speak of introducing one to the world, 
i. €. announcing him to them? 'This is the common mode of in- 
terpretation. But some interpret efooyayn by commend, preducere 
et conspicuum facere. Others, (with Chrysostom and Theophylact), 
Oray éyyeroion avr tyy otxounevyy, when he delivers the world 
into his hands, i. e. makes him king over all; a sense which intro- 
ducing to the world, or into the world, will hardly bear. None of 
these interpretations seem to accord with the wsus loquendi of the 
New Testament. -Hroayuysty ig ty ofxouuévny and anooréddecy 
sig TOV xOGMOY, are plainly phrases of equivalent import; and the 
latter is repeatedly used concerning Christ, John 3: 17. 10: 36, 
and employed to denote either his birth, or his appearing before 
the world in his public character. Such too is the Rabbinic usage 
of D>4ya Na. Comp. Heb. 10: 5. John 16: 28. 18: 37. 1:9. It 
is not, then, an introduction of the Son to the world by prophecy, as 
expressed in the Old Testament, which is here spoken of; but an 
introduction in fact, i. e. his birth, or perhaps his entrance on his 
public office. It was at that time, as it would seem, that the angels 
received the command in question. Gregory Nyssen says, zado 
TO ¥TLOTOY HvOoEY EaUTO, EtouyOnvas Aeyerae Eig tnv xtiow, as he 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 7. 55 





united that which was created with himself, he is said to be introduc- 
ed into the creation ; cited by Theoph. in locum. 

Kai noooxvynsarwouy avr1m .... ov, let all the angels of 
God worship him. Compare with this, Luke 1: 11 seq., 1: 26. seq., 
in particular 2: 8 seq., where the angelic choir appear, and cele- 
brate the birth of the Saviour. The xa here denotes, that the 
sentence quoted stood in connexion with something else which 
preceded it; but as this is not quoted also, the xaé cannot well be 
translated. 

If this exposition be admitted, (and it appears to be supported 
both by the wsus loguendi of the New Testament and by fact), then 
we need not be very solicitous, whether the passage in Deut. 32: 43 
(Sept.), or in Ps. 97: 7, is here quoted by the writer ; nor whether 
either of them is quoted. See Excursus VI. 

If I have rightly interpreted vs. 5 and 6, the meaning may be 
briefly expressed thus ; ‘Prediction in the Scripture assigned to 
the Son a rank above that of the angels, and occurrences at his 
birth demonstrate such to be the fact.’ 

7. Kai moog pév.... mvo0s, moreover, with respect to the an- 
gels it is said, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministering 
servants flaming fire; i.e. who maketh his angels that serve him 
the ministers of his will, as the winds and the lightning are. The 
Hebrew o> wa, and Greek rugos gidya, often mean lightning ; 
as plainly they do here. ‘The whole phrase is susceptible of anoth- 
er interpretation ; viz. who making his angels winds, i. e. swift as 
the winds, and his servants lightning, i. e. rapid, or terrible, or re- 
sistless as the lightning. But this does not suit the design for 
which the apostle quotes it, so well as the first interpretation. His 
object is to shew, that the angels are employed simply in a ministe- 
rial capacity ; while the Son is Lord of all. Our English version, 
which has rendered nimas (Ps. 104: 4) by spirits, gives an erro- 
neous view of the meaning of the original. 

Others construe the Hebrew original thus, Who maketh the 
winds his messengers, and the lightnings his servants ; and they de- 
fend this by alleging, that the context in the Psalm shews the de- 
sign of the writer to be, only to declare the glory of God as display- 
ed in the visible creation; and consequently, it is inapposite to 
suppose him here to be speaking of the angels, as an order of 
invisible, intelligent beings. But in Ps. 104: 1—3, the invisible 


56 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 8, 9. 








as well as visible majesty of God is described; and it is natural 
that the writer should proceed, and augment the force of his de- 
scription, by introducing the angels as the ministering servants of 
the Deity. Besides, the Hebrew does not allow us properly to 
translate, Wio maketh the winds his angels or messengers. In or- 
der to mean this, the Hebrew must be written PND NMA AL, 
and not (as now) nina MaNtA myy. See Heb. Gram. § 197, 
3, and comp. in Ps. 104: 3. 42927 D°ay Dw, which surely cannot 
be rendered, ‘“* Who maketh his chariot clouds.” 

As to A: ve, in this verse, it is clear that the nominative can- 
not be zo, for then the quotation would be in the first person, as 
it isin v. 5 above. The nominative, beyond all reasonable doubt, 
is 4 yougn, or 0 vouos. 1 have rendered A¢yev in the passive 
voice, merely to avoid expressing the nominative, since the writer 
has not expressed it. To the same purpose Storr and Schulz, 
heisst es, it is said. So the usual appeal in the Mishna, 77283. 
Compare also, got, in | Cor. 6: 16. The quotation, in our verse, 
is from Ps. 104: 4. 

8,9. IToos 0é tov view... . aéeivtos, but respecting the Son, 
[he saith], Thy throne, O God, is eternal. Oyovos is plainly the 
emblem of dominion ; because kings, when acting in their capacity 
as rulers, were accustomed to sit on thrones. “O @s0¢ is not the 
nominative case, as some have maintained, but the vocative. It is 
the usual vocative, and nearly the only form of it, throughout the 
Septuagint; e. g. Ps. 3: 7. 4: 1. 5: 10. 7: 1, et passim. The At- 
tics, moreover, frequently retain the form of the nominative, in the 
vocative of the second declension. Buttmann’s Gram. § 33. n.2. 
To translate the phrase by God is thy throne, would” be to intro- 
duce-a mode of expression foreign to the wsus loquendi of the Scrip- 
tures; for where -is God ever said to be the throne of his 
creatures? And what could be the sense of such an expression ? 
Throne is the emblem of dominion, not. of support. So Theoph., 
Doovos yao .... 0 Paothelag ovufodov. Figuratively used, as 
here, it is of the same import as sceptre, 6a@d0s. Gesenius ren- 
ders the phrase, thy God’s throne is eternal, i. e. the throne which 
God gives thee. But this is doing violence to D975 FNOD, which 
to support his rendering should be, wT SN NOD, the pronoun follow- 
ing the second of two nouns in regimen, cecardins to the usual 
custom, Heb. Gram. § 185. 1. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 8, 9. 57 





“Pados evOurntos .... oov, a sceptre of justice is the sceptre 
of thy kingdom, or, thy reign is gust. The former clause desig- 
nates the perpetuity of the Son’s reign ; the present one, its equita- 
ble nature. It is quite plain, too, that the two clauses are a poetic 
parallelism, as they belong to Ps. 45: 7 ; and also that the subject 
of both clauses is the same, viz. the dominion or reign of the Son 
or Messiah. 

“Hyannoag... avomiav, thou hast loved righteousness and hated 
iniquity, 1. e. thou hast administered the affairs of thy government 
in a manner altogether just; or, thine equity is highly conspicuous. 
Such a negative form of expression (zai éulonoas avoutur), follow- 
ing an affirmative one, is very common in the Scriptures, and is 
designed to give intensity to the affirmative assertion which pre- 
cedes it. Comp. John 1: 3, 20. et al. saepe. 

Ava rovte ... . ayaldvacens, because of this, O God, thy God 
has anointed thee with the oil of gladness. But the phrase is equal- 
ly susceptible of the rendering, God, thy God, has anointed thee, 
etc ; and this without any alteration of the general sense of the 
passage. Theophylact, however, thought otherwise; for he says 
“6 Meo, avti tou w Mee ore, as Our enemy Symmachus (here a 
credible witness) affirms, who renders the Hebrew thus, dé, 0 
0g cov.” 

"Phavov ayaddicoens, i.e. xar éhovov. Kings were anointed 
with oil, in order to consecrate them to their office ; see Ps. 2: 6. 
1 Sam. 10: 1. 16:13. But perfumed oil, or precious ointment, 
was often employed also on festive occasions; and honoured guests 
at an entertainment were often bedewed with it. That éecov ay- 
aAdecoewe here does not mean the oil of consecration to office, is 
plain from the consideration, that the administration of the kingly 
office is described, in the preceding context, as having already ex- 
isted. The meaning then must be, ‘God has exalted his Son, 
with honour greater than that bestowed on kings,’ or, ‘ bestowed a 
higher joy on him than on other kings.’ 

Tlage rove pero zous cou, lit. in comparisonwith thine associates, 
i. e. in office, viz. kings. God has bestowed a higher reward, a 
greater honour on the king Messiah, than on any other kings. 

Thus much for the words. The general sentiment remains to 
be stated. ‘The words are quoted from Ps. 45: 6, 7. That this 
whole psalm relates to the Messiah, has been generally believed by 


VOL II. : 8 


58 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 10. 





Jewish and Christian commentators ; and it is at last acknowledg- 
ed by Rosenmueller, in the second edition of his Comm. in 
Psalmos. All other explanations seem liable to insuperable dif- 
ficulties ; and this, one may hope, will soon be universally felt and 
acknowledged. 

That the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, however, as me- 
diatorial king, can scarcely be doubted by any one who compares 
together all its different parts. This king is called pbx, ded. 
Does the word Jog here denote the divine, or the kingly nature or 
condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who admit the doc- 
trine of the Saviour’s divine nature, contend for the first of these 
senses; as I have myself once done, in a former publication. But 
further examination has led me to believe, that there are grounds 
to doubt of such an application of the word og, in this passage. 
The king, here called @s0¢, has for himself a @eog; “thy God 
hath anointed thee.” The same king has associates (ueroyovs), 
i. e. others who in some respects are in a similar condition or of- 
fice. As divine, who are pétozor with the Saviour? Besides, 
his equity, his government, his state, as described in Ps. xLy., are 
all such as belong to the king Messiah. Now as Elohim is a title 
sometimes given to kings or magistrates, as one may see in Ps. 
82: 1, 6. comp. John 10: 35, (in Ex. 7: 1 and 4: 16, it isa differ- 
ent case), although no one individual king or magistrate is ever 
called simply Elohim, may not this title be applied, in a sense alto- 
gether peculiar and preeminent, to the Messiah as king; designat- 
ing his great superiority over all other kings, and distinguishing 
him as ouvy%eovoes with God, as ‘ King of kings, and Lord of lords?” 
Rey. 17: 14. Comp. Heb. &: 3, and the note on éxa0voev év deka 
4. t. 4. Such an explanation, to say the least, removes some of 
the difficulties which attend the usual one ; while the following 
verses leave no just room to doubt what was the opinion of the wri- 
ter of our epistle, in regard to the divine nature of the Messiah. 

The perpetuity of the kingdom mentioned here, may be the 
same as that in Luke 1: 33; with which is to be compared | Cor. 
15: 24—28. Indeed, it must be such, allowing the kingdom of 
the Messiah to be the one which is here meant. 

10. Kal, ov uar aoyas.... &0spehineas, also, Thou Lord in 
the beginning didst lay the foundation of the caurth. This verse is, 
by construction, necessarily connected with the preceding ones ; 


COMMENATRY ON HEB. I: 11, 12. 59 


v. 7% nad moog mév TOUS ayyéhous Aéyer—v. 8, mod dé TOY vidv 
[Aeyev]—v. 10, wai [i. e. moog tov viov Agyec]. An -address to Je- 
hovah here, considered simply as creator, is utterly irrelevant to 
the scope of the writer, and tothe object which he evidently has in 
view. Both the grammatical construction, and the plain design of 
the passage, unite in declaring this. 

Kar awoyas, in the Hebrew, Ps. 102: 25, it is b°3 3BD, of old, for- 
meriy, equivalent to m¥N AZ in Gen. 1:1. Auge, in the New 
Testament and Septuagint, corresponds both to maim? and 5k or 
Dod, in the Hebrew. Here it corresponds to $x, in Ps. 102: 24. 
"Edsushiooag, thou hast laid the foundation; Geuehvow, applied 
to a building, has this sense. But here it is, of course, applied in 
a figurative manner, to designate the original and primary act of 
creation, (so to speak); viz. that act which may be compared to 
what a workman does, when he lays the foundation of a building. 
The Son, therefore, did not merely arrange or set in order the 
materials of creation already brought into being, but laid the foun- 
dation of the universe, i. e. performed the original act or first work, 
viz. that of bringing it into being. 

"Eoya tov yeouy oov, {772 mvs, the work of thy hands, 
i. q. thy work. The phrase is borrowed from the fact, that hands 
are the instruments by which men usually perform any operation ; 
and this is, like other human operations and affections, figurative- 
ly transferred to God. Oi ovgavoi means, all parts of the crea- 
tion except the earth; see Gen. 1: 1. The Hebrews designated 
the sun, moon, and stars, i. e. all the visible creation besides the 
earth, by the word o772w, heavens. 

11. Avro, they, i. e. the heavens and the earth. Sv dé dvaue- 
veic, (Hebrew 422m), thow shalt continue, be permanent, stand fast. 
It is the opposite of axodovvras. Tlekowwdrjoovree, shall wax old, 
a word which, applied to a garment (the image here used) means, 
to go into a state of decay or desuetude, to become unfit for use. 
Hence the metaphorical language that follows. 

12. Kal wosi.... avrovg, and as a vesture shalt thou fold 
them up. “Ehikerg means, to fold up, to roll together. The heav- 
ens are often represented as an expanse (3*p7), and rolling them up 
is, of course, toremove them. The language, however, in the case 
before us, is borrowed from the custom of folding up and laying 
aside garments, which have become’ unfit for use. The Hebrew 


* 
60 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 13, 14. 





word (for which éA/fevg is put) is #7bnn, thou shalt change, remove. 
“Adhaynoovras, they shall decay, they shall be changed, i. e. remov- 
ed, taken away, or shall pass away, Hebrew 355m, Ps. 102: 26. 
Comp. 2 Pet. 3: 10. Is. 51: 6, also 34: 4, where the image is fully 
presented. 2v 62 0 avrog «i, (Hebrew yin mms), thou art he, 
viz. who liveth for ever, thou art always the same. So the sequel 
leads us to interpret this. Za éry cou ovx éxdelwouor, thy years 
shall never cease or fail, i. e. shall never come to an end. 

This would be true, if it was spoken merely with reference to 
the future, and should be construed as having respect only to eter- 
nity a parte post, as it is technically called, i. e. eternity to come. 
But as it stands here, in connexion with having created the heavens 
and the earth zaz aoyas, it can hardly be understood to mean less 
than absolute eternity, or eternity a parte ante et a parte post. See 
Excursus VII. 

13. TIgo0¢ viva 02 tov ayyzhov .... OeEcov pou, unto which of 
the angels, also, has he ever said, sit at my right hand. That is, 
where is any example of his addressing any one of the angels, and 
asking him fo sit at his right hand, i. e. to be cvyGgovog with him? 
See on dete preyahoourns, under v. 3 above. 

"Ewo av 90 ....700mv cov, until I shall make thine enemies 
thy footstool, 1. e. reduce them to the most entire subjection. 
These words are quoted from Ps. 110: 1 (Sept. 109.1), and are 
applied tothe Messiah. Jo make enemies a footstool, is an expres- 
sion borrowed from the custom, in ancient times, of treading upon 
the necks of captives and captive kings, on the occasion of cele- 
brating a triumph over them, and in token of their complete pros- 
tration and subjection ; see Joshua 10: 24, and so often in Homer. 
Enemies signifies all such as are opposed to the doctrines or duties 
of the Christian religion.- In Ps. 110: 1, the Messiah is invited to 
sit at the right hand of God, (i. e. at his right hand on his throne, 
comp. Rey. 3: 21), until (a2, Ewe av) his enemies should be utterly 
subdued. But what follows this period, when they shall have been 
thus subdued? The apostle has told us. It is the mediatorial 
throne to which the Messiah is exalted; it is to him as constituted 
king, that his enemies are to be brought in subjection ; and when 
this is accomplished, the mediatorial throne and reign, as such, are 
to cease. So ] Cor. 15; 24-28 seems to assure us. 

14. How different the station and employment of angels, from 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 14. 2: 1. 61 





that of the Messiah! He is ovy@govog with God, and commands 
the universe; they are spirits employed merely as ministers to ex- 
ecute his will. Are they not all Aserovgyexa avevuara? Comp. 
1K. 22:19. Zech. 3: 5—7. Dan. 7: 10. Is.6: 1. Luke 1: 19. 
By the Rabbins, the angels are frequently named anaes "28572, 
angeli ministerti. Etc dvaxoviay, for ministering, in order to serve, 
i. e. assist. eaxovia, means, any kind of service or assistance 
whatever. It is here said to be performed, dca tous wéAdovtag 
zAnoovousiy Gwtygiav, on account of those who are to obtain salva- 
tion, i. e. on account of Christians who are the heirs of future glory 
or happiness, or, who will obtain it. 

Whatever may be the opinion of some modern critics, in regard 
to the real existence of angels as intelligent beings; it appears quite 
clear, that the writer of our epistle regarded them as such. To 
have instituted a comparison between the Son of God, on the one 
hand, and mere abstract qualities or imaginary beings, on the oth- 
er, would not seem to be very apposite, at least not apposite to any 
serious purpose. And if the writer looked upon angels as only im- 
aginary beings, or personifications of qualities, with what propriety 
or consistency could he represent them as worshipping the Son of 
God, or as ministering to the saints? But Ps. 102: 3, is first er- 

» roneously translated, He maketh the winds his angels, and flaming 
fire his servants, Aecrovoyous avrou, and it is then used as a proof, 
that the elements themselves are called angels. Hence it is con- 
cluded, that it is unnecessary to suppose angels to be an order of 
real, intelligent beings. But as this translation is not well ground- 
ed, (see on v. 7th), any such conclusion built upon it cannot be 
stable. That the sacred writers every where regard angels, and 
speak of them, as intelligent beings, having a real existence, ap- 
pears so plain, that it would seem as if no one who is not strongly 
wedded to his own a priori and philosophical reasoning, could ven- 
ture to deny it. 


CHAP. II. 


1. Ave tovro, on this account, therefore, i. e. since Christ, who 
is at the head of the new dispensation, is so much exalted above 
the angels who were the mediators of the old (see v. 2), it becomes 
us, etc. "Huas, us by xolrwocg, i. e. a method of speaking in which 


62 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 1. 





the writer includes himself with those whom he addresses. See 
Heb. 1: 1. 2: 3. 3: 1, 14. 4:2, ete. See also similar cases in 1 
Cor. 10: 8, 9. 2 Cor. 7: 1. Acts 16: 17, et alibi. 

Tlooceyevy is elliptical, (wo00¢zecv tov vovr is the full expres- 
sion), and means, attendere, to give heed to. Abresch thinks it is 
here equivalent to avrézyeoGou, retinere, tenaciter adhaerere; which 
Dindorf also favours. But evidently this is unnecessary, inasmuch 
as 7EgLOoOTEgMs is connected with it, and designates the intensity 
of mind, with which attention should be paid to the things that the 
Son of God reveals. “Azxovotsetor, things heard, are the truths and 
doctrines of the Christian religion, which had been declared to 
them, see ys. 3, 4. 

Tlagag6vensy, a long contested and difficult word. Two sen- 
ses have been principally contended for; (1) Vo fall, to stumble, 
or to perish. This latter sense Chrysostom and Theophylact give 
it; magagguepmer, ToVTEOTL, anohMMEedu, éExnéowuev. Both illus- 
trate it by the proverbial saying, addressed to a child, vid, ay) m0- 
oagouns, Prov. 3: 21, in order to guard him against stumbling. In 
like manner ‘Theodoret represents the word as spoken here, “va m7) 
tive OhLoGoy Vi0MEtvouEr, so that we may not suffer a lapse, or, 
may not stumble, fall. So Suidas explains it by meganéowper ; 
Hesych. by éxaéouperv; Lex. Cyrilli, uy aagagéurs, wy éxnéons, 
px magaovons. The Syriac and Arabic interpreters have render- 
ed it, that we may not fall. Alberti and Matthiae, with many mod- 
ern critics, assign to it the same sense. ‘I'he idea connected with 
stumbling, falling, by this class of commentators, is not that of 
transgression, but of punishment, of destruction; as is evident from 
the whole of their illustrations, when compared each with himself 
and with the others. 

But, although this view of the word has been often given, none 
of the passages adduced from the Greek writers, and alleged to 
justify it, seem adequate for this purpose. Wetstein has collected 
a large number of passages, which contain the word in question. 
But most of them, are only such as designate the well known senses 
of the word nagagdum, viz. to flow, to flow by; as tm naga moh 
nagupgeovte moraum (Plutarch); mvsiy ano tov magaggéovtos 
xotamov (Xen.); to flow into, as mugagdvels.... &g TO ordpue 
idgws (Galen) ; in all which cases the word is applied to the flow- 
ing of liquids: to flow out, as ei rug apoodiovos hoyos aagaguy, 


c° 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 1. 3 





(lian). In some cases the word is figuratively applied to loco- 
motion in men; as magagévels yao avPowmos eg tov veo [var] 
rou Aoxhynov (Plutarch). None of these instances justify the 
sense of perishing, falling into ruin. 
( 2,) The other sense contended for, is that of suffering to flow 
from the mind or memory, i.e. to forget. That nagagéveiy is 
frequently applied to things that glide or pass away from the mind, 
is well established. E. g. “‘ Many, who seem to be believers, . . 
need, for the sake of remembering, .... examples drawn from ob- 
jects of sense .... ive ur) redeov nagagéuy, so that they will not 
entirely escape, i. e. from the mind, Origen contra Celsum, p. 393.” 
“That ra xako may not be merely temporary, zal a7 magagévn 
AjOns Bvdois auavoovueva, and may not escape |flow away], be- 
_ ing obscured in the abysses of forgetfulness, Greg. Nazianz.” So 
Lucian, ef rz év 1) morjoews Oooum magagover Lady, if any thing 
flowing away [escaping] in the poetic course is forgotten, Diss. cum 
Hesiod. 5. So in Latin, “ frustra docemur, si quidquid audimus 
praeterfluat [naoagéver], Quinctil. XI. 2.” ‘It cannot enter in- 
to the mind of the judge, ante enim practerlabitur quam percepta 
est, for it glides away before it is apprehended, Cicero de Orat. 
ra 

But in all these cases, zag¢6um is applied only to things, and 
not to persons. That a thing rage¢g¢uy, should escape from me, 
and that J should be said magagévery in respect to that thing, are 
two very different expressions ; and consequently, all the instances 
above, which have been adduced by learned critics, do not meet 
the difficulty of the case. ITaga¢géuwper is applied, in our text, to 
persons, not (as here) to things. 

In the classics, I have been able to find no example, which is 
in point for our case. The Septuagint have used the word but 
once, Prov. 3: 21, vie, ur) magagduys, t7gnoor 02 Euny Bovdry nol 
évvorav, Son, do not pass by [neglect], but keep my counsel and ad- 
vice. This is the very proverb to which Chrysostom and 'Theophy- 
lact appeal, as an illustration of the word in question ; but the true 
sense of this word, in Prov. 3: 21, they do not seem to have ap- 
prehended. JTagagéu7¢ here plainly does not mean to perish, to 
fall, but it isthe antithesis of ryonoor, keep, attend to, practice, and 
consequently means, to pass by, to neglect, to transgress. In like 
manner Clemens Alex., speaking of women, says, ‘“ They are bound 


64 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 2. 





by virtuous modesty, ‘ve 7) magagéumo: tHS alndelas dia yavro- 
tyra, not to neglect [pass by, transgress] the truth on account of 
effeminate weakness Pedagog. III. p. 246.” These two instances 
seem to meet the wants of our case, as magagéuv@ is here applied 
to persons, 

The sense which our passage demands, is better made out by 
following these examples, than in any other way. The writer of 
our epistle does not design to say, in chap. 2:1, Take heed, or 
you will perish ; for he speaks of punishment immediately after, in 
2:2. The explanation of Chrysostom, then, and of the great 
number of critics who have followed him, is rendered improbable 
by the nature of the context, and it is unsupported by any classic 
example in point. ‘The other explanation, lest we should let them 
slip, lest we should not retain them, lest they should glide away, is 
an approximation to the right meaning of the word. Plainly 7 
maoagdvaper, here applied to persons, means, lest we should pass 
by, viz. the things which we have heard, lest we should neglect them, 
lest we should transgress [pass beyond] them; for so the writer him- 
self has explained it, in the context. For if, says he, every maga- 
Bao and naoaxon received a due reward [under the law of Mo- 
ses], how shall we escape punishment, anehnoarvtes, having 
neglected so great salvation. That opednoarres here refers to the 
same thing which is designated by aagagéummev, is quite clear ; 
for first, the writer exhorts them ‘ to attend diligently to what they 
had heard, lest they should pass by or neglect it ;’ and then he says, 
‘if they do neglect it (auedjoarrec), punishment will be the cer- 
tain consequence, a punishment more severe than that, inflicted on 
transgressors under the law.’ 

- The same sentiment is obtained, if we compare magagévmpev 
with the preceding meguoooréoms .... meooezery, of which it is plain- 
ly the opposite or antithesis. Now as mgoo¢yecy means, to attend 
diligently, to give heed, so nagagGvmmpev must mean, (as its antithe- 
sis), not to attend diligently, i. e. to treat with neglect, to be amedr- 
Ouvrés, as it is expressed in the following verse. In a word, the 
sentiment is, ‘ diligent attention to the truths of the gospel is 
necessary to guard us against neglect ot transgression ; which neg- 
lect is followed by certain and aggravated condemnation. 

If an apology be due for dwelling so long on the verbal criticism 
of this word, it is, that the word has been so long contested, and 
so unsatisfactorily illustrated. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 2, 3. 65 





c 


2. Hi yao 6 ov ayytiwy hadlnteig hoyos, if the communication 
[revelation] made by angels. The Jewish law is undoubtedly the 
hoyos dv ayyehov hodndeis, in this case. The meaning is, that an- 
gels were present and assisted, at the giving of the law. See Ex- 
cursus VIII. 

‘Lyévero BeBacog, was ratified, was made firm and stable, i.e. 
its threatenings and promises were exactly fulfilled ; nothing which 
the law declared was null, or failed of being carried into execution. 
Comp. Rom. 4: 16. Heb. 9: 17. 2 Pet. 1: 19. 

Koi naou nagafaces xai meoaxon, every transgression and act 
of disobedience. ‘The words are nearly or quite synonymous by 
usage, both of them being employed in a secondary or derived sense. 
Tlaoaface (from ragafaiv), literally, going beyond, passing by 
any thing, is here applied to a moral action. So - 2 comes 
from MAOaKXOVO, which means, first, to hear in a careless or negli- 
gent manner ; and secondly, to disobey, i. e. it is the opposite of 
exovw to hear, and, to obey. Tlagafacu xai nagaxon taken to- 
gether mean, every kind of transgression, or, every kind of offence 
against the law. 

"Evdwnzov proSanodooiar, just retribution, or, condign punish- 
ment. MisSanodoola designates the reward of retributive justice, 
i. e. punishment, as well as the reward for virtuous conduct ; and 
this, in heathen as well as sacred writers. 

3. Img auzic éxpevsoueda, how shall he escape? viz. escape 
the ywo0arodoctay reserved for transgressors. Comp. Heb. 12: 25. 
So Rom. 2:3, éxgevyev to xoiua tov Geov. So Aesch. Eumen. 
v. 756, éxpevyecy aiuatog Olxny. 

Tnkixavrns owrngias, i.e. the Christian religion ; for so the word 
cwrnoia sometimes signifies. Comp. Jude ¥. 8, perhaps Rom. 11: 
11, and Heb. 6: 9. The full phrase would seem to be 6 Adyog rag 
owrtngias, which is found in Acts 13:26. It is, however, the Chris- 
tian religion with all its promised blessings and tremendous threats, 
which is here designated by cmwznoia. How can we escape with 
impunity, if we neglect (aedrjouvtes) them? °Auedjouvteg here 
means more than simple neglect ; it is plainly emphatic in this con- 
nexion, and means, to treat with utter disregard or contempt, such 
namely as would be implied in apostasy. 

“Hrs aoynv hoBovou hudsiodac, equivalent to év eeyn Aady- 
eiow, which was at first declared or published. The Greeks often 


VOL. I. 9 
| 


66 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 3, 4. 


use the phrase woznv AuBwv, for, at first, or taking its rise, com- 
mencing its origin. Tov Kugiov, viz. Christ. 

“x0 tay axovoavroy sic rpmas éfeBarwOn, was confirmed unto 
us by those who heard [him], i. e. the Lord, or, by those who heard 
[it], i.e. the gospel, cwrygiav. “EPefacdn here means delivered 
or declared with confirmation to us, i.e. Christians. So Theophy- 
lact, OverogOuevOn eis juas BEePaiwg xol moras, was propagated 
to us surely and faithfully. Because the writer here says e¢g 7uac, 
some critics draw the conclusion, that Paul could not have been the 
author of this epistle, since he received the gospel immediately from 
Christ himself, Gal. 1: 12, and not from those who heard the Sa- 
viour declare it. But who that reads his writings with care, can 
fail to -_ how often he employs zodymoec, when addressing 
Christians? Cicero says, in one of his orations, Nos perdimus rem- 
publicam. Shall we conclude that he did not write the oration, be- 
cause he did not himself destroy the republic? See on zjua¢, under 
v. 1, and also Introduction, § 27, no. 17. 

4. Suvenuuagrvoovvrog tov Geov onueiorg re nai téocor, God 
attesting, being co-witness, viz. to the truth of what was preached, by 
various wonderful events. SLnusiov, as used often in the New Tes- 
tament and in the Septuagint, means, any extraordinary sign or mi- 
raculous event, designed to shew the certainty that something which 
had been promised or predicted should take place, or that a prophet 
was what he professed to be. Téoag¢, portentum, prodigium, miracle, 
has nearly the same meaning, and is very commonly joined with 
onusiov, in the New Testament. Both connected mean, various 
extraordinary events or prodigies, designed to confirm, establish, or 
render credible, any prediétion or declaration of Christ, or of his 
messengers. ‘ Heathen writers sometimes employ both words in 

connexion ; e. g. Aelian, Var. Hist. XII. 57. The corresponding 
Hebrew phrase is, DnD4vaa MANN, signs and wonders, i. e. wonderful 
signs or proofs of any thing. Such the people of God often requir- 
ed, and such were often given. See Gen. 15: 8—18. 24: 12—27. 
Judges 6: 17, 21, 36—40. 2 K. 19: 29. Is. 38: 7, 8. 7: 14—16, et 
alibi. Comp. Matt. 12: 38. 16: 1—3. 

Koi mocxihace Ouvamede, and various miraculous powers. Some- 
times duvemes is put for miracle, as Matt. 7: 22. 11: 20, 21, 23, et 
alibi. But as onuetosg xol téoaoe denote miraculous events, in our 
verse, I understand duvameov as referring here to the miraculous pow- 








COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 4. 67 





ers which were imparted to the primitive teachers of the Christian 
religion. In such a sense the word is employed, in Mark 6:14. Acts 
6: 3. 10: 38. The Septuagint do not employ this word to translate 
either mix or D947, but always use ojmeroy and révata. 

What follows, is connected with the phrase just explained; viz. 
wal MVEVUATOS ayiou péotouors, literally, and distributions of the 
Holy Spirit, i.e. the imparting of divine influence ; which refers 
particularly to the species of this influence, which consisted in the 
power of working miracles. See 1 Cor. 12: 6—11. Comp. also John 
7: 39. Acts 1: 5, 8. 2: 4,17, 18, 33. 5: 32. 8: 15--19. 10: 44-- 
A7. 19: 1--6. 

Tlotxihars dvvaneoe.... xed ueoropois, if considered as a Hen- 
dyadis (ev dva dvoiv), may be thus rendered, various miraculous 
powers, imparted by divine influence. But I rather prefer the ren- 
dering which I have given it in the version, as sregvopoig probably 
designates the additional gifts of the Spirit, other than miraculous 
powers. 

Kare tiv adrovu behnour, as it seemed good in his [God’s] sight, 
as he pleased; or, as the Holy Spirit pleased, which last is favoured 
by L Cor. 12: 6—11. 

The sum of the whole warning (vs. 1—4) is, ‘ Beware that ye 
do not slight the gospel, whose threatenings are more to be dreaded 
than those of the law; inasmuch as the gospel is a revelation of a 
higher nature, and has been confirmed by more striking and more 
abundant miracles, wrought by divine power.’ 


. 


The writer, after having thus stopped for a moment to warn his readers against the con- 
sequences of defection from Christianity, returns to his subject; viz., the comparison of Christ 
with the angels. Having established, by appeals to the Old Testament, (1: 5—14), the superi- 
ority of the former over the latter, in several points of view ; he now proceeds to shew, that 
the new or Obristian dispensation was not ordered or arranged (like the Mosaic one) by angels, 
but that the Son of Man, the Messiah, was, in his human nature, placed at the head of it. Now 
as the Jews, one and all, conceded that the dispensation of the Messiah would be of a higher 
order than that of Moses, proof that Jesus was the sole mediator or head of the new dispensa- 
tion, and that angels were not employed as mediators or internuntii in it, would satisfy them 
that Jesus was superior to the angels ; since the place which he holds in the new economy, is 
higher than that which they had under the old, because the new economy itself is of a higher 
nature than the old. At the same time, an objection, which a Jew, weak in Christian faith 
and strong in his attachment to the Mosaic institutions, would very naturally feel, is met, and 
tacitly answered by the apostle, in what follows. The unbelieving Jews doubtless urged upon 
those who professed an attachment to Christianity, the seeming absurdity of renouncing their 
subjection to a dispensation of which angels were the mediators, and of acknowledging a subjec- 
tion to one of which the professed head and mediator appeared in our nature. The history of 
the objections made by the unbelieving Jews, to the claims of Jesus as being the Son of God 
(John 10: 30—39 et alibi), shews how very repulsive it was to their feelings, that one to all 


"ae wk 


neh. “ 


68 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 5, 6. 








appearance like a man, and made up of flesh and blood in the same manner as themselves, 
should advance a claim to the exalted honours of a superior and divine nature. The sects of 
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which arose even in the apostolic age from professed Jewish 
Christians in Palestine, shew how prone the Jewish Christians were, to feel doubts and difficul- 
ties about the claims of Jesus to a nature higher than the human, and to which divine honours 
were due. 

No wonder, then, that the apostle found it necessary to meet, in our epistle, those doubts 
and difficulties with regard to the superior nature of the Christian dispensation, which were 
urged upon the minds of Jewish converts, by the unbelieving Jews who regarded Christ as a 
mere man. We shall see, however, that our author disposes of this difficulty, so as to further 
the great purpose of his general argument. 

He concedes the fact entirely, that Jesus had a nature truly and properly human, v. 6—18. 
But instead of granting that this proves the new dispensation t6 be inferior to that of Moses, 
he proceeds to adduce evidence from the-Old Testament Scriptures, to shew that man, or the 
human nature in the person of the Messiah, should be made Lord of the universe. Consequent- 
ly, in this nature, Jesus the Messiah is superior to the angels. Of course, the possession by 
Jesus of a nature truly and properly human, does not at all prove either his inferiority, or the 
inferiority of the dispensation of which he is the head (v. 6—9); which meets an objection 
strongly urged n the Hebrew Christians, by their unbelieving brethren. 

Nay more os becoming that God should exalt Jesus, in consequence of his obedience 
unto death; a death necessary for the salvation of Jew and Gentile, v. 9.10. To suffer this 
death, he must needs take on him a nature like ours; and, as his object was the salvation of 
men, (and not of angelic beings), so he participated in the nature of men, in order that by ex- 
perience he might know their sufferings, temptations, and trials, and thus be prepared, in a pe- 
culiar manner and in their own nature, to be compassionate, faithful, and ready to succour 
them, vy. 11—18. ( 

The sum of the whole is; ‘ The possession of a human nature by Jesus, is far from being 
a reason, why the ancient dispensation (of which angels were the internuntii) is preferable to 
the new one; for (1) This very nature is exalted far above the angels. (2) Without partici- 
pating in this nature, Jesus could not bave made expiation for sin by his death. And (3) The 
possession of such a nature did contribute, in a peculiar and endearing manner, to constitute 
him such a Saviour as men could approach with the greatest boldness and confidence, in all 
their wants and all their woes.’ a 

Such appears to be the course of reasoning and thought, in Heb. II. The words and phras- 
es remain to be explained. 







squivalent to 6 alwy oO wed- 
world as it will be in future, 
0 péddwy, i. e. the world unger the reign of Christ. See Wahl, on 
the word wimy. The addition of the writer, megi 7¢ AoAovuer, 
shews that such is the sense of the phrase ; for it is Clris{ianity, to 
which he had just been urging the Hebrews to pay the strictest re- 
gard. 


. x 5 pane ‘ oe 
5. Try oixovutvyny tiv pehdovoer, 
Aoy, i.e. the Christian dispensation, 1 


6. AMewaorvoato Oé mou Tig, one in a certain place, i. e. passage 
of Scripture, bears this testimony. The writer speaks to those who 
were supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and who 
needed only a reference to them, by quoting some of the words 
which any passage contained in order that they might be found. 
For a Hebrew to acknowledge the authority of his own Scriptures, 
might be expected as a matter of course. ‘The passage quoted here 
is Ps. 8: 4—6, exactly according to the version of the Seventy. 


e ws 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 6, 7. 69 





Ti éorw evPownos, Ore uouyvnjoxy avrou ; what is man that 
thou shouldest kindly remember him? 'The secondary sense of weu- 
vynoxnw is, to remember with affection, to treat with kindness. So the 
Heb. 137; and so wemrjoxeode, in Heb. 13: 3. 

“HL vidg aviownov, Ore énvoxentyn avrov, or the son of man, 
that thou shouldest regard him! The phrase vidg avdoumov, is 
equivalent to GyOowmos; just asin Hebrew, DIN 72 is equivalent to 
pix. The subject is evidently the same as in the preceding clause, 
and viog avGoomov is employed merely for the sake of giving vari- 
ety to the mode of expression. " Envoxentouce, to visit, is usually, to 
inspect or look upon favourably, to watch over one for his good, to 
succour him, to assist him. See Matt. 25: 36. Luke 1:68. James 
1:27. In the New Testament, it is used only in a sense which de-. 
signates inspecting with an eye of favour. But in the Septuagint 
it is also used for, visiting in order to punish; as is the Hebrew 
pe, e.g. Ex. 32: 34. 34: 7, et alibi. Our English word regard, 
(taken in a good sense), answers well to éncoxentouae. The clas- 
sical use of the word sometimes, though rarely, accords with the 
sense in which it is here employed. 

7. Hharrmoas avroyv Boayu TL 100 ayythous, thou hast made 
him but little inferior to the angels. TIaga here means, in compar- 
ison with; as in 1:4 nag avrovs. Boayv te may signify either a 
little time, or, a Little in respect to degree or rank; in which last 
case, it would be equivalent here to our English word somewhat. In 
the Septuagint it is employed in both these senses; as is also the 
Hebrew word oy72, which is here rendered by Pgayv re. In Ps. 8: 
6, oy72 seems pretty plainly to refer to inferiority of rank or station, 
and not to time. But in our text, most recent commentators have 
maintained that it refers to #ime ; and consequently, that the apostle 
has merely accommodated the passage in Ps. vin. to an expression 
of his own views. But such a mode of interpretation is, at least, 
unnecessary here. ‘Che object which the writer of our epistle has 
in view, is not to prove how little time Christ appeared in our na- 
ture ; but that, although he did possess a nature truly human, still, 
in this nature he was exalted above the angels. *"Hilarrmoue avror 
Boayv te mag ayyedous, then, simply designates the condition of 
man, as being in itself but little inferior to that of the angels. Man 
is made in the image of God, Gen. 1: 26, 27. 9:6. It is plainly the 
dignity of man which the Psalmist intends to describe, when he 


> 
4 


+ ie 
70 Ks Evans ON HEB. 2: 7 
7 — B ta: 7. | 
says, DTSNB Sra AT TOANN1. To such a view of his design, the 
context of this passage, in Ps. ymu., leads us. The Psalmist looks 
abroad, and surveys the heavens in all their splendour and glory, 
and then, with deep sensations of his own comparative insignifi- 








_.cance, he exclaims, ‘“‘ What is man that thou shouldest be mindful of 


. 


him! Or the son of man, that thou shouldest regard him! Yet [1 
but, yet] thou hast made him but little eens (nz72 AM OMNN?) to 
the angels, thou hast crowned him etc.” The nature of the case, 
and the nature of poetic parallelism, here require such an interpre- 
tation of the passage in the original Psalm. 

But the very same interpretation of it is altogether apposite to 
the purpose of the writer, in Heb. 2:1. What is his design? To 
prove that Christ, in his human nature, is exalted above the angels. 
How does he undertake to prove this? First, by shewing that this 
nature itself is made but little inferior to that of the angels, jiat- 
THGUus avTOYV Foayv te aap eyyéh.ous; and next, that it has been 
exalted to the empire of the world, “ Thou hast crowned him with 
glory and honour, and set him over the work of thy hands.” 

But suppose, now, that we should render Goayu te, for a little 
while ; what object, which the writer designs to accomplish, is ac- 
complished by such an assertion? It would not contain any proof 
of the dignity of Christ in his human nature, but merely of tempo- 
rary inferiority, i. e. inferiority during the time of his incarnation. 
Clearly it is not the present object of the writer to prove this. 
Much more to the purpose does he appear to reason, when we un- 
derstand him as using Seayu te, in the same sense as 0379 is used 
by the Psalmist. The passage thus understood, renders the vindi- 
cations (attempted by m&ny) of the /iberties, which the writer is 


_alleged to have taken with Ps. 8: 6, quite unnecessary. 


Tlag’ eyyéiovs, in the Hebrew, 29>N73. On the subject of 
rendering D°G>N, ayyshou, see on 1: 6. If we insist that the usual 
meaning o the Hebrew word Elohim should be retained, the ar- 
gument would be still stronger, to prove the dignity of the Messiah 
in his human nature. Thou hast made him but little inferior to 
Elohim, would represent him, at least, as touyyehos, if not above 
the angels. See Gen. 1: 26, 27, from which the language here, 
and in the sequel, appears to be borrowed. 

But how could the apostle use aa@’ ayyéhous, as conveying the 
sense of 578727 In answer to this, we may say, (1) It conveys 


<< e 
4. v ' 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. a a 7 





no meaning that is untrue. If man is but little below Elohim, 
surely he is not much inferior to the angels. (2) As angels are 
here compared by the writer with man, or rather, the angelic with 
the human nature in the person of the Saviour, the passage, as it 
stands in the Septuagint and as the apostle has quoted it, is appo- 
site to his purpose ; although it claims, in fact, less for the argu- 
ment, than would be claimed, by insisting that the word D=a>y 
should be interpreted as usual. As the writer was addressing 
those who used the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, nothing 
could be more natural than to quote that version as it stood, unless 
it conveyed an idea that was essentially erroneous. This is just 
what we do, every day, with our English version of the Scriptures, 
without suspecting that we are violating any rule of propriety. 

Besides the Seventy, the Chaldee has rendered Dx >x72 by 
N2DN57272, 1. e. mao ayyéhovg. With this rendering Aben ‘Ezra 
agrees; as do Mendelsohn, Michaelis, Dathe, and others. But, as 
the writer seems to refer, in Ps. 8: 6—9, to Gen. 1: 26--28, the 
probability that o-4>x in Ps. 8: 6 means, God, i. e. that the author 
of the Psalm originally meant to convey this idea when he used it, 
is pretty strong. Still the apostle, by using the version of the 
Seventy, mug ayyéhous, has, as I have already said, assumed less 
in the argument, than the original would have given him; and, at 
the same time, he has taken a version, which in its present shape 
is exactly apposite to his purpose, 1. e. to shew, that if a comparison 
of Christ with the angels be made, it will be seen, that during his 
humiliation he was but little inferior to them, while in his exalta- 
tion in the human nature, he is far above them. 

Aokn nae TUMy éoreqavwoas aurby, thou hast crowned him with 
glory and honour, or, with exalted honour. Aokn xai Tum are 
nearly equivalent or synonymous ; and two synonymous nouns, 
thus constructed, are expressive of intensity, agreeably to the well 
known usage of the Hebrew language, from which this idiom is 
borrowed. In the original, a=3G9n "37} 7123), which is very 
literally rendered in the Greek. 

But what is the exalted honour eonkarned upon the human na- 
ture of Jesus? Kel xaréornoas avror énl ta éoya tw yetoor oou, 
thou hast set him over the works of thy hands, i. e. thou hast given 
him dominion over the creation. “Hoya tov yergwy cov means 
simply, the works which thou hast made, i. e. thy works. The form 


* 
72 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 8, 9. 








of expression is borrowed from the mode of human operations, in 
which hands are the most conspicuous instrument. Aadlornmte, 
sisto, colloco, statuo. It should be noted, however, that this clause 
is omitted in some Codices of good authority ; such as B. D. and 
several others. 

8. Tavra vaérakag vnoxarw tov nodwy avrot, thou hast 
subjected all things to him, i.e. given him universal dominion. 
The phrase, to put under one’s feet, denotes, to put in a state of 
complete, entire subjection. See Excursus IX. 

The writer proceeds to comment on the quotation just made. 
‘Ev yao tw Umorakae wvim ve wavta, ovdey agHxEY ALLO avUTO- 
tTaxtov, 1. e. the expression is one of universality, it makes no ex- 
ception, put enki, God himself ; comp. 1 Cor. 15: 27. 

Nov 62 ova doumev GUIW TH MAVTE UMOTETOYMEVE, at present, 
indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected to him. ©Ynoreray- 
peva, subject to his ordering, arrangement, or disposal. In other 
words, ‘ This prophecy of the Psalmist is not, as yet, wholly fulfill- 
ed; but so much of it has been accomplished, that we may regard 
it as a pledge, that a fulfilment of the rest will certainly follow.’ 
So the sequel. 

9. Tov 62 Boayt te... . yevontar Oavarov, but we see Jesus, 
who was made but little inferior to the angels, crowned with glory 
and honour on account of the suffering of death, after that he had, 
by the grace of God, tasted of death for all, i. e. for Jew and Gen- 
tile. So I understand this much controverted and somewhat dif- 
ficult passage. ‘Two objections against the superiority of Christ 
over angels, were very naturally urged by the unbelieving Jews 
upon the believing ones. * (1) Christ wasa man. (2) He suffered 
an ignominious death. To the first, the apostle replied in the quo- 
‘tation which precedes, and on which he is commenting. But in 
doing this, he also suggests the consideration, that the death of Je- 
sus, so far from proving his condition to be inferior to that of the 
angels, was immediately connected with his exaltation to glory, 
and with the salvation of the world. 

It would be tedious to recount all the various interpretations 
which have been given to particular parts of the 9th verse. I lim- 
it myself merely to stating the reasons of the interpretation which 
T have given. 

Abéy nai tiun éEorepavapevoy, crowned with the highest honour, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9. 73 





dia tO neOHUG TOV Pavarov, on account of his suffering death. 
See the same sentiment in Phil. 2: 8—I1. Heb. 12:2. Comp. 
John 17: 4, 5. Heb. 5: 7—9. Eph. 1: 20—23. Rev. 3: 21. 

“One, the great mass of commentators have translated, wt, eum 
in finem ut, unde sequitur ut, etc. But how was Christ crowned 
with glory and honour, that he might taste death? To avoid this 
difficulty, most of them transpose the clause onwg yavere x. tT. A. 
so as to connect it with the first clause of the verse, and translate 
thus, Jesus, made for a little time lower than the angels, in order 
that [ut, ut si¢] he might taste of death etc. But the apostle’s ob- 
ject here, is not to shew simply that Jesus possessed a nature in 
which he might taste of death; but that the suffering of death in 
it, (a fact conceded by all), is no reason why he should be deemed 
inferior to the angels. Consequently the turn given to the passage, 
by the above transposition and explanation, is inapposite to the pur- 
pose of the writer. 

That Omwg generally means, that, so that, in order that, etc. ; 
particularly that it has this meaning, in most instances where it 
occurs in the New Testament; there can be no reasonable doubt. 
But omg also means, cum, quando, postquam, when, after, after 
that. So it means, plainly, in Acts 3: 19, although Wahl has over- 
looked the passage. So also in Herod. 1:17. Aristoph. Nub. 61. 
Soph. Oedip. Col. 1638. Homer. Il. XII. 208. Odys. HII. 373. 
XXII. 22. Eurip. Phoenis. 1155. 1464. This sense also Hooge- 
veen, Zeunius, Ernesti, Schleusner, and Schneider, assign to it. 
“Onmg is construed more usually, with the future indicative, or 
with the subjunctive Ist or 2d aorist, in case these tenses are found 
in any verb. In the instance before us, it is followed by yEVONTAL, 
in the subjunctive aorist | middle voice. It may then be render- 
ed by the past time, (as I have translated it); just as in the cases 
where the formula omw¢ mAnowdy, occurs, it is often rendered, or 
should be rendered, so that there was an accomplishment. 'The on- 
ly difference in the latter case is, that the voice is passive ; which 
however does not affect the question about the mode of rendering 
the tense. 

This method of interpreting the verse frees us from the very 
great embarrassments, which are presented by most of the others 5 
and the sentiment becomes plain and apposite. ‘Jesus did indeed 
take on him our nature, and suffer in it; but his sufferings were 
Vou. u. 10 


74 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9. 





means of advancing him to supreme dignity, after he had by them 
procured salvation for the human race, vnég aavidg. So long, 
then, as the highest glory was consequent upon the sufferings of 
Jesus, and the salvation of Jew and Gentile was accomplished by 
it, surely the death of Christ can never prove that he is inferior to 
the angels.’ In this way, all the reasoning of the writer seems to 
be apposite to his purpose. 

Xaovre Fe0v means, by the goodness, kindness, mercy of God. 
‘Ynéo navrog means, all men without distinction, i.e. both Jew and 
Gentile. The same view is often given of the death of Christ. 
See John 3: 14—17. 4: 42. 12:32. 1 John 2: 2. 4:14. 1 Tim. 
2: 3, 4. Tit. 2: 11. 2 Pet. 3:7. Comp. Rom. 3: 29, 30. 10: 11— 
13. In all these and the like cases, the words all, and all men, 
evidently mean, Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to the Jew- 
ish idea, that the Messiah was connected appropriately and exclu- 
sively with the Jews, and that the blessings of his kingdom were 

appropriately if not exclusively theirs. The sacred writers mean 
to declare, by such expressions, that Christ died really and truly as 
well, and as much, for the Gentiles as for the Jews; that there is 
no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one who may 
belong to his kingdom ; and that all men, without exception, have 
equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who 
understands the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, 
in expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every in- 
dividual of the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned 
by the wsus loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly against 
the views of those who advocate what is éalled a particular redemp- 
tion. The question, in all these phrases, evidently respects the 
offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through a Redeem: 
er; not the actual application of promises, the fulfilment of which 
is connected only with repentance and faith. But whether such 
an offer can be made with sincerity to those who are reprobates, 
(and whom the Saviour knows are and will be such), consistently 
with the grounds which the advocates for particular redemption 
maintain, is a question for the theologian rather than the commen- 
tator to discuss. : 

Tevonrae Yavarov, taste of death, i. e. expertencewdeath, suffer 
it. So the Hebrew writers use the word pro for experience; and 
classic Greek authors, the word yevouar in the samesense. E. g. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9, 10. 75 


Ps, 34: 9. Sibyll. Orac. I. p. 164, "Addu yevocusvoc Savarov. 
Eanapius de Porphyrio, “Porphyry praised the spell of purity, 
noi doa méivag yevouevos, and first tried [tasted] it himself.” 
Philo (de vita Mosis p. 632), 1 Ovavove tov yevoumevarv Oovorntos, 
the mind of those who have experienced [tasted] holiness. 

10. "Lngene yao avro dv ov ta nova nui Ov ob Ta navre, 
it became him, for whom all things [were made], and by whom all 
things [were made]; i. e. it became the supreme Lord and Crea- 
tor of all things. The writer leaves his readers to feel and ac- 
knowledge the truth of this assertion, without stopping to offer 
proof of its correctness. The foree of the appeal seems to lie, in 
the tacit acknowledgment of all, that reward is properly consequent 
upon trial and approbation, and is not to be bestowed without them. 
Now as Christ possessed a nature truly human, and as all men are, 
by the universal arrangement of a wise and overruling providence, 
subjected to trial; so it was proper or becoming in God, that Je- 
sus should be subjected to trial in our nature, before he was ad- 
vanced to glory in it. 

Tloahovs viovs ayayovra x. 7.4. This part of the verse con- 
tains an involved construction of the words, in respect to their or- 
der. The arrangement of the sense I take to be as follows; 
"Enoene yao auto .... dua mad nuctwy tehecmoae Tov aoynyor 
THs owrnulas avTOV, ayayoute moAhove viove ig Ookav. It became 
him tehevooue tov agynyov. The word rédecog means, full grown, 
of mature age, either literally, or figuratively. In the latter sense 
it is employed, in 1 Cor. 2: 6, however, we speak the doctrines of 
wisdom év toie tehetore. So Heb. 5: 14, comprehending as it were 
both the above senses, where it is opposed to v7jmv0g. See also 1 
Cor. 14: 20. Eph. 4: 3, et alibi. TZedevog also means, mature in a 
moral sense, i. e. integer, just, free from vices, perfect. It is also, 
very naturally, used in a secondary sense, to denote a consummation 
or maturity of our nature and happiness in a better world; e. g. 
1 Cor. 13: 10. Hence the verb redecow, formed from the adjec- 
tive reievog, is often used to designate, exaltation to a state of re- 
ward or happiness in a future world. Among the Greeks, this verb 
was employed to designate the condition of those, who, having run 
in the stadium and proved to be victorious in the contest, were 
proclaimed as successful ¢yaveorai, and had the honours, and re- 
wards of victory bestowed upon them. (So rédog is used by the 


76 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 10, 11. 





Greeks, for reward, i. e. consummation ; see Schleusner on reAevow). 
Such persons were reredecpevos. Ina sense like this is reevow 
usually employed, with reference to Jesus, throughout the epistle 
to the Hebrews. E. g. 5: 9, redecdels, being advanced to a state 
of glory; 7: 28, rétehecomevov, id. 'The same sense the word has, 
in the verse under examination. In v. 9, the writer had said, that, 
on account of the suffering of death, Jesus was do&y nul tyr eortE- 
gavouevoyv. Here he says, dca maOyparwy tehecwour, on account 
of sufferings to exalt to glory, or, to bestow the highest honours. As 
the writer evidently says this, in commenting on the preceding ex- 
pression, it is plain that dva noOnuacwy tedscooue is merely an 
equivalent for deca ro nadnne tov Pavarov Ookn nal tym éotE- 
guvopéevoyv. So Theophylact ; ‘ zedeiwoug here means, doguy nv 
E08: HOw ys. 

Lov aoynyov owrnolas avrwv, auctor salutis, the author of sal- 
vation ; so it is usually interpreted. So Chrysostom, WLTLOS, 0 uy 
oor nolar texwyv Probably the phrase, conriyor OWTNELES GULMY, 
may mean here, the same as avynyoy xal owrr ye in Acts 5: 351, 
i. e. their prince and Saviour. In Acts 3: 15, aeynyov ry Suis 
is applied to Jesus; and in Heb. 12:2, aoynyor rg mistress ; 
which would rather favour the first interpretation. The sense, 
however, seems to be substantially expressed, if we render, on ac- 
count of sufferings, to exalt to a state of glory their Prince and Sa- 
viour. Thus understood, the passage contains admirable matter 
of exhortation to the Hebrew Christians, to persevere in their ad- 

_ herence to Christianity, amid all their trials and sufferings ; for Je- 

' sus their Prince and Saviour himself suffered, and was exalted to 
glory by his sufferings. If* Jesus himself, then, exalted as he was, 
endured suffering, how could they expect to be exempt from it? 
Yet, if they persevered in their adherence to him, like him they 
would be zeredecapevoe. 

AL "O,te yao ayiusov nai of ayeagousvoe & évog mavres. 
The word aycagw scems not to have been well understood here, 
by most commentators, and requires, in order to explain the sense 
in which it is used in our epistle, a particular investigation. ‘Ayt 
afm corresponds to the Hebrew wap w> 3727, which often means, 
to consecrate to God as an offering ; e. g- Lev, 22: 2, % DWI, 
“— dyraCovot poe; 22: 3, WAP Bépt, Cy LALaoe 5 Ex. 13: 2. 
"> wip, Sept. ayiaoov mot, et alibi. ‘The verb wyzp also means, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 11, aA 


by a natural association of ideas, to expiate, to make atonement for ; 
e. g. Job. 1: 5, Dw, he made atonement for them, where however 
the Sept. has dustbin aurovg; so Ex. 19: 10,14 and Josh. 7 
13, according to Gesenius, where the Sept. has eyyoov, lel 
and wyiacov. Comp. also Ezek. 44: 19. The verb eyiegw also 
corresponds, in the Septuagint, to the Hebrew >25, which is the 
appropriate word to designate the making of an atonement, to wr 
ate; e. g. Ex. 29: 33, they shall eat those things D2 42D VON 
with which expiation was made, Sept. év oi¢ iyo I nour év wvrois ; ; 
Ex. 29: 36, and thou shalt purify the alter, 722 37222, when 
thou makest an expiatory sacrifice upon it, Sept. év tw ayragery os 
éx autw. From the usus loquendi of the Hebrew and the Sept. 
it is plain, then, that éyvafw may mean, to make expiation, to atone. 

Our epistle presents some plain instances of the use of aysaton 
in this sense. E. g. 10: 10, according to which will nytaopéevor éo- 
fev, we are atoned for, i. e. expiation is made for us. How? The 
writer immediately subjoins, dra ru¢ mo0cqogas TOU oumaros ’/y- 
cov Xocorov épanaé ; which necessarily refers 7yseouevoe to the 
propitiatory offering of Christ; and consequently it has the sense 
which I have given to it. So 13: LI, 12, “ For the bodies of those 
animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary by the high 
priest, as a sin offering, were burned without the camp; where- 
fore Jesus, “va eyenon the people with his own blood, suffered with- 
out the gate ;’” where aycaon plainly means, to make expiation for, 
to atone for. Both of these passages compare well with that un- 
der consideration ; and all three predicate @yzaouos of the suffer- 
ings and death of Christ ; for in our context, in the very next pre- 
ceding clause, the writer has spoken of Christ as revsdecoucvor 
Ota madnuetwy; and he bad just declared, that “ Jesus by the 
grace of God, had tasted of death for all men.” 

We may then render 0,7 ayvagwy nai of ayraSousroe, both he 
who makes expiation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made, 
byS Nap AWA. The usus loquendi of the epistle seems not mere- 
ly to justify, but to demand, this interpretation. 

“EE évog mavreg, i. e. have God for their common father, So 
most commentators. Some say, ‘Have Adam for their father ;’ 

others, ‘ Abraham.’ The context leads me to doubt whether any 
of these interpretations is correct. V. 14 et seq. very plainly re- 
fers to a community of nature, and states the grounds or reason 





78 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 11, 12. 





why such a community existed. “AE évo¢g then means, that Christ, 
and those for whom he atoned by his sufferings, were é& évog ye- 
vous, i.e. possessed in common of the same nature, see v. 14. 
The reasoning of the writer, when the words are thus understood, 
is altogether apposite. It seems to be this; ‘That Christ had a 
nature truly human, is no objection to regarding him as a Saviour 
exalted above the angels, and altegether adapted to the wants and 
woes of the human race. Inthe human nature he suffered, and 
was advanced to glory; in it he made atonement for men; in it 
he sustains a most endearing relation to those for whom he made 
expiation, he sympathizes with them, vs. 17, 18, and they are unit- 
ed to him as brethren having one common nature, é& évog mavteg 
4%. td, vs. LI—13. 

Ai nv wiviay.... xahsiv, on account of which, i. e. because he 
possesses the same nature in common with them, he disdains not to 
call them his brethren. Ovx énavoyvverar, Chrysostom says, is 
used with regard to a person of higher rank, who condescends to 
associate with those of a lower standing. But if Christ were mere- 
ly a man, and nothing more, where (we may ask with Abresch) 
would be either the great condescension, or particular kindness, 
manifested in calling men his brethren? If, however, he possess- 
ed a higher nature, if éxevwos éavrov, woogyy Oovdov Aefar, Phil. 
2:7; if éranelvwoe éxvrov, Phil. 2:8; then was it an act of pe- 
culiar kindness and condescension in him, to call men his brethren. 
It is this high privilege, to which men have attained, that the apos- 
tle is endeavouring to establish and illustrate ; and all this affords 
additional reason not to think diminutively of Jesus, as possess- 
ing a human nature. 

- Having introduced the proposition, that ‘ Christ, possessing a na- 
ture truly human, regards men as his brethren ;’ the writer appeals, 
as is usual with him, to the Old Testament, in confirmation of this 
sentiment, and to shew the Hebrews, that it is no new doctrine 
respecting the Messiah which he inculeates. 

12. Agywy, saying, i. e. since he (Christ) says; anayyeho 
z.t.4, The passage is quoted from Ps. 22: 23 [21:22], where, 
for the Hebrew >4208, the Seventy hive denyrjoouce ; instead of 
which, our text employs its equivalent or synonyme, enayyeho. 
Such departures from the Septuagint are very common, in the New 
Testament quotations. 





s 
‘COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 12, 13. 79 





That the 22d Psalm relates to the Messiah, the Jews themselves 
confess, (see Dindorf in loc.) ; and the history of his death seems, 
indeed, to be a kind of practical commentary upon it. I “@an find 
nothing in the Psalm which forbids the application of it to the 
Messiah ; although I can find enough to satisfy me, that it is quite 
inapplicable to David. The general he the nations to 
God, (vs. 28—32), accords well with the ith wl 
not with the Jewish ; which from its very nature ty, a 
universal religion; for how could all nations, from the extfemities 
of the earth, ever go up three times in a year to Jerusalem, to wor- 
ship and to offer sacrifice there? And can it be rationally suppos- 
ed, that David uttered such words as those to which I have just ad- 
verted, in reference merely to Judaism ? 

The whole object of the present quotation is merely to shew, 
that Christ is exhibited in the Jewish Scriptures, as having recog- 
nized men as his brethren, adedqovs. 

"Ev néow éxndAnoiag vuvyow ce, among the assembly will I praise 
thee, i. e. in or among the assembly of my brethren, of men, will I 
celebrate thy praise. In the Hebrew, the word “TN and S57 y7n2 
correspond to each other, and are equivalent, as to the subjects 
comprised in them. The first part only of the apostle’s quotation, 
is directly to the point which he is labouring to illustrate and con- 
firm ; the second part, (as in many like cases), is cited: principally 
because of the intimate connexion which exists between it and the 
preceding parallelism, and because the memory of those whom he 
addressed would be assisted, by a quotation at large of the whole 
verse. : 

13. Kalmah, again the Scripture says; éyo éoouoe menot- 
Gus én avr@, I confide in him, or, I will confide in him. But 
whence is this quoted? In Ps. 18: 3, the Hebrew has 42 MOM, 
which the Seventy render, éinco) avra ; in 2 Sam. 22: 3, the same 
Hebrew words occur, which they render according to the phrase- 
ology of our text, renovOwg Zoouce ex’ arg. Some crftics have 
defended the opinion, that the quotation of the apostle is from one 
of these passages. But as it is plain, not only that the Messiah is 
not described or alluded to in these passages, but also that the Jews 
have never been accustomed to interpret them as referring to him ; 
so there is surely no need of defending this position, if another pas- 
Sage as apposite as these can be found, which is less exceptionable 


80 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 13, 14. 


in regard to its application. Critics are pretty generally agreed, 
therefore, that Is. 8: 17 is quoted, the Hebrew of which is 55 "2p), 
the Septuagint version of which is the same as our quotation. 
This, considered in connexion with the quotation immediately fol- 
lowing, (which is taken from Is. 8: 18), renders it altogether pro- 
bable, that the wri d this place of Scripture rather than either 
oO . og in nd, when he made the two quotations in 
qu : " Hebrew, 45 "n2p1, may be rendered, I will wait 
Sor hint” will trust in him. The latter is adopted by the Sep- 
tuagint, and by the apostle. 

Kai nade tdov x. t. 1. has been adduced as an argument that 
the passage quoted here must be from a different part of Scripture 
and not from the same with that of the quotation immediately pre- 
ceding. But this does not follow; for in this same epistle, 10: 30, 
a quotation is made from Deut. 32: 35, and another from Deut. 32: 
36, with xa? madev between them as here. In such a case, xai 16- 
uy is to be rendered, and further, or, and moreover. 

The argument in this case appears to be this. ‘Men exercise 
trust or confidence in God. This is predicated of them as depen- 
dent, and possessing a feeble nature. The same thing is predica- 
ted of the Messiah ; and consequently he possesses a nature like 
theirs, and therefore they are his brethren; 2& évog mavtec.’ See 
Excursus X. 

14. Kexowwryxe oaguos nai aiucros, participated in flesh and 
blood, i. e. possesSed a nature human, a body made up of flesh and 
blood. See 1 Cor. 15: 50. Eph. 6: 12. and comp. Matt. 16: 17. 
Gal. 1: 16. Sirach. 14: 18. The children, wawdte, here mentioned, 
are the same that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the 
disciples, the spiritual children of the Messiah. 

Kei avros navandnoias meréoyse tov avtwy. Here pereoze 
is a synonyme of xexowwvyxe, participated in. . Tavanknoing is 
equivalent to Omoiws, in the same manner as, as well as. The 
Docetae e&changed naoandAnoliws here for ouoimg, and then con- 
strued duoims as indicating only an appearance similar to flesh and 
blood ;.in opposition to whom the Christian fathers maintained, 
that xapandnoiws signified, ov doxyras add chnOivas, ov pavtrao- 
TinMg GAA OrTwE. 

Tay avroy, i. e. oagx0s zal afuaros. The meaning is, that 
Christ had a natural body, truly corporeal and mortal. With this 










COMMENATRY ON HEB. 2: 14, 15. 81 





he was endowed, in order that he might suffer death in it, and by 
that death vanquish the spiritual enemy of mankind, the great ad- 
versary of souls. 

“Iva. Ove Oauvatov.... tov dvaforor, that by his death he might 
subdue him who has a deadly power, that is, the devil. » Soest is 
scarcely used by Greek writers, and when it is employed, it has 
the sense of delaying, rendering inactive, hindering, i.q. éunodi- 
Cevv, which is used to explain it, by the Scholiast on Eurip. Phoeniss. 
760. In this sense, it is often used in the Apocrypha. In the 
New ‘Testament, the use of the word is not unfrequent; but with 
some latitude of signification, as may be seen by the lexicons. 
Here it means, to render inefficacious, or, to subdue, viz. Satan the 
spiritual enemy of man, who has a deadly power ; comp. 1 Cor. 15: 
24— 26. 2 Tim. 1: 10. I understand rov ro xgarog tov Gavatou 
éyovto, in this plain and simple manner; which renders all the 
speculations, about the power of the devil to inflict the sentence of 
natural death upon men, unnecessary ; and equally so, all the ef- 
forts'to show what the Rabbins have taught about Sammael, the 
angel of death, nytt Nb. That a deadly power, i. e, a power 
of leading men to sin, and consequently of bringing them under 
sentence of spiritual death, is ascribed to Satan in the New Tes- 
tament is sufficiently plain; see John 16:11. 12:31. 14: 80. 
Eph. 2: 2. 6: 12. Col. 2: 15. 2 Cor. 4: 4. et alibi. In 1 John 3: 
8, is a passage altogether of the same tenour as ours. To render 
null the deadly power of Satan, is to prevent the effects of it as 
bringing men to incur the sentence of spiritual death, i. e. to re- 
deem them from the effects of such a sentence, or to redeem them 
from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13; comp. Rom. 5:9 seq. 1 
Thess. 1: 10. Even the temporal consequences of death are re- 
moved by Christ, 1 Cor. 15: 21, 26, 45, 52 seq. Thus interpreted, 
we have a plain sense of the passage, and one analogous to numer- 
ous other parts of the Scriptures. 

115. Kat anadlatyn rovrovsg .... dovisiag, and free those [from 
condemnation], who, during their whole lives, through fear of con- 
demnation, had been exposed to a state of bondage. ” Anulhaky 
means primarily, to remove, to depel, to depart. But here, (as some- 
times in classic authors), it means, to free, to liberate. So The- 
ophylact, gAsuPnemMoae. It may be questionable, whether it is con- 
nected with Gevarog understood, or with dovasia. Either way of 

VOL. Il. IL 


82 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 15. M. 


construing it would make good sense, and be apposite to the de- 
sign of the writer. I have preferred to connect it with @avaros, 
because of the sentiment in the preceding verse, which respects 
the Savaroy inflicted by Satan, i. e. the condemning sentence of 
the law incurred in consequence of sin, committed through the 
wiles or temptation of Satan. 

®ofw Gaverov, I understand as referring to the fear of that 
condemnation or punishment, to which sin exposes men; not to 
the fear of natural death ; an evil from which no precaution can 
deliver us, and which Christians as well as others must suffer, not- 
withstanding the death of Christ. But the death of Christ has 
freed them from suffering that condemnation or punishment which 
they feared, in a future life. This seems to be the obvious mean- 
ing of the writer ; although it has been generally overlooked. 

Ave navtos tov byv, i. q. Ova maong tg Sw7¢, the infinitive 
mode being here used, as it often is in the Greek classics, as a 
mere noun. But it is not the usage of the older Greek writers, to 
put the infinitive nominascens after an adjective, as here. We may, 
therefore, understand yoovou as implied after maavzog. The later 
Greek, however, affords examples like ours; e. g. 70 advaxou- 
tov Srv, 70 adnOuvov Snv, é« tou mooxermevov Snv, Ignat. Ep. ad. 
Trall. 

“Evoyou jour dovisiac, had been subjected, [obnoxious, exposed | 
to servitude, i. e. subject to a depressed and miserable condition, 
like that of slaves under a tyrannical master. “voyog comes 
from évéyoucs, adstringor, and so means, adstrictus, alligatus. It 
usually governs the dative, as Matt. 5: 21, 22 bis; and thus in 
classic writers. But it also governs the genitive, aS here; e. g. 
Matt. 26: 66. Mark 3: 29. 14: 64. 1 Cor. 11:27. James 2: 10. 
Aovieiag means, the servile and depressed condition of those who 
are exercised with the fear of death, 1. e. of future misery. It is 
the death of Christ which delivers them from the condemnation, 
the anticipation or fear of which had often, during their lives, de- 
pressed them, or made them unhappy. Comp. John 8: 32—35, 
where, however, the dovde/a referred to is the servitude of sin. 
Here it is the condition, into which the fear of future condemna- 
tion casts Christians. 

The deliverance spoken of, is accomplished by anticipation 
here, Rom. 8: 14—17; but fully and finally, in another world, 


4 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 15, 16. 83 


Se 


where the pious are admitted to a state of confirmed happiness. 
Ae navrose tov Env evoyou yoav dovisiag, does not necessarily 
imply, that the whole time of life had been actually occupied with 
a state of fear and depression, dovdeiag ; but that during the whole 
of it, those who are delivered had been, more or less, exposed to 
agitation by fears of this nature. From the object of such fears 
Christ delivers, or will deliver them ; and this is the simple senti- 
ment of the text. 

16. Ov yoo Ojnov ayyéhwy énchouBaveras, besides, he did not 
extend aid at all to the angels ; another reason why he took on him 
a nature that was human. He came to the aid of man; he be- 
came like him, so as the more intimately to sympathize with him, 
and to help him. Ayov, profecto, omnimodo, certe, strengthens 
the affirmation, i.e. gives intensity to it. “LnvdauPaverou, lit. to 
grasp, or, to take hold of with the hand. Hence, figuratively, (1) 
To assert one’s right to a thing ; to lay hold of it as one’s own; and 
(2) To aid, help, succour, to take hold of when falling or in danger. 
In the Septuagint, it answers to the Hebrew pin, 7aN, wen. 
The Christian fathers have applied it to the assumption of an an- 
gelic nature, which they suppose the writer here denies. But the 
usus loquendi is against this; and the context also. For the apos- 
tle had just asserted above, that Jesus took on him a nature human ; 
and it would be a mere repetition of the same sentiment here, if 
we construe v. 16 as meaning thus; ‘He did not assume the an- 
gelic nature, but that of the seed of Abraham.’ But if the argu- 
ment be, that ‘ Jesus assumed the human nature, because he was to 
aid men and not angels,’ then the 16th verse contains a reason 
why the Saviour did and should take on him the nature of man; 
viz. that it was altogether accordant with the great object of his 
mission. . 
Sngouaros’ ABoacu, progeny of Abraham. In such a sense, 
profane as well as sacred writers use ogouo. Is it the natural or 
spiritual seed of Abraham, which is here meant? Either will 
make good sense, and agree with the object of the writer. Believ- 
ers are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3:'7; and Gentiles as well 
as Jews, Rom. 4: 12--18. 9:7, 8. 3: 29, 30. So, the assertion 
that Christ died dxée maytog (v. 9), does not disagree with the as- 
sertion that he helped the seed of Abraham, who are both Jews 
and Gentiles. But, although this interpretation may be sufficiently 


° 


84 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 16, 17. 





justified to render it worthy of acceptation, I am inclined to be- 
lieve, that it does not give the original sense of the writer. He is 
addressing Jews. He says, ‘Christ had a human nature; this it 
behooved him to possess, for he came to help the seed of Abraham, 
i. e. those who, being descended from Abraham, possessed a na- 
ture that was human.’ His assertion extends merely to such as he 
was addressing. But surely this would not imply a denial that he 
helped any others, who were possessed of the same nature. So far 
is it from this, that it implies the contrary ; for the amount of the as- 
sertion is, ‘ He came to help those, who possessed a nature such as 
that which he had assumed.’ 

17. “Oder, an illative particle, whence, i.e. because he was to 
help the seed of Abraham. “Qqevde.... OuotwOyvat, he must 
needs be made like unto his brethren, i. e. to men, vs. 10O—12. Ka- 
Toe uéyra, i. €. in all things requisite to constitute a nature truly 
human. The meaning is, that he should be wanting in none of 
the innocent infirmities, and in none of the sympathies, of man’s na- 
ture. To deduce more than this from the expression now in 
question, would be to do what the writer plainly never designed 
should be done. 

But why? “fe dherjuoy yévnroe nai meoros woyregeus, that he 
might be a compassionate and faithful high priest. °Elejuwv, 
merciful, sympathizing with those who are in distress. As those 
are best adapted to do this, who have themselves been sufferers ; so 
Jesus took on him our nature, in order that he might suffer in it. 
Thorog is either, faithful, or, worthy of trust or confidence. In the 
former sense I take it here. Jesus assumed our nature, that he 
might qualify himself in a peculiar manner to exercise compassion 
toward us; and that he might discharge with fidelity the duty laid 
upon him as our high-priest. A priest to offer sacrifice for us, 
must be homogeneous with us. Such a priest was Jesus, faithful 
in discharging the duties of his office. What were those duties ? 
They were ta moog roy Oedr, things which had respect to God, i. e. 
services of a religious nature. The phrase morog... .T@ 1009 
zov Gedy, is elliptical. In full, it would be thus; xaca ra moaype- 
ra ta 1e0S tov sor, faithful as to things ete. 

But what things were these? ‘/AaoxsoOas rag auaotiag TOU 
Aaov. The common expression is, écAcouoMae megi revog 3 as in 
Lev. 4: 20, 26, 31, 35; or e&lacaoar neal rig amaotias TLVOS, 


» 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2:17, 18. 85 





Lev. 5: 13. 4: 35. But ecAaouoPae anaortiag also occurs, Dan. 
9: 24. 1 Sam. 3:14. Sirach 28:5. “/Maoxouae means, to render 
propitious, to appease. But this sense it can have directly, only 
when the person appeased is expressed or understood after the 
verb. Hence ihaoxeo9oe auagtiag must mean the same as 45 
non, to make appeasement for sin, to cover sin, to make atonement 
oh fOr “it. The Septuagint sometimes translate “p> by ihaoxouae. 
Christ, then, as high priest, was faithful to perform the peculiar 
duty of that office ; which was, on the great day of atonement, to 
make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. How he 
did this, is shewn in the sequel of the epistle. Here, only so much 
is asserted, as was requisite to enforce the considerations which 
the writer had immediately in view. 

18. “Ev o yuo, for since, i. q. OTe yao, Hebrew UNI, because 
that, inasmuch as. Teénovdev avros nevoaodsic, he himself suffer- 
ed when exercised with trials. TleoaSa means, to try, to put 
to the proof, in order to ascertain the disposition, purpose, capaci- 
ty, etc. of anyone. This trial may be, (1.) For a good purpose; by 
subjecting one to any evils'or dangers, as God tried (02) Abra- 
ham, Gen. 22: 1; or, by placing him in circumstances either pros- 
perous or adverse, that are of a peculiar nature, as God did Israel, 
Ex. 16: 4. Judg. 2: 22. Trial may be, (2.) For an evil purpose ; 
as the Pharisees éxe/yoou '/joouv, by proposing to him ensnaring 
and subtile questions, Matt. 19: 3 seq. 22: 18, 35, et saepe; or, 
by laying before any one inducements to sin, as Satan does before 
the minds of men, 1 Cor. 7:5. 1 Thess. 3:53 comp. James 1: 
13, 14. In both of these senses, Christ was tried. ‘ It pleased 
the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, Is. 53: 10;” and, 
“It became him, for whom and by whom are all things, to advance 
to glory our Prince and Saviour, dva aadnuarwy, Heb. 2: 10.” 
The same Saviour was solicited by Satan to sin, Matt. 4: 1, 3. 
Mark 1: 13. Luke 4: 2. Understood in either way, then, the Sa- 
viour was tempted in like manner as we are, (xara mavtTe, x00 
Ouovornta, Heb. 4:15), though without sin. That he did not 
yield to any excitement to sin, was owing to the strength of his 
virtue and holiness, not to the weakness of the temptation in itself 
considered. ‘Temptation, in the second sense, is that which is 
presented to the mind as an inducement to sin, and does not relate 
to the actual state of the mind or person to which it is presented. 


* 


86 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. 
t 





Men tempt God ; they tempt Christ; and so did Satan; but there 
never was any disposition in Christ to yield to it. 

There are two or three cases, however, in which the word 
nevoagw seems to denote yielding to sin, i. e. having the effect of 
mévoaouos produced upon one; e. g. Gal. 6: 1, perhaps James 1: 
14; comp. ameigaoros, not induced to sin, in James 1:13. But 
this is an wnusual sense of the word mecoatw, and altogether inap- 
plicable to the Saviour, who was “separate from sinners,’’ Heb. 7: 
26. Christ then, mevgaodeic, being proved, both by sufferings and 
by solicitations to sin, dvvatae toig méevoalouevorg BonOyjows, is 
fitted in a peculiar manner to succour those, who undergo either 
kind of trial. He is not only possessed of a merciful regard for 
them (v. 17), but he has direct and immediate sympathy with 
them, the result of his own personal feeling and experience. Won- 
derful condescension of redeeming love! Here lies the great mys- 
tery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh. And while Je- 
sus sits on the throne of the universe, Lord over all, the Christian 
is reminded, that he does this in his nature, as his brother, v. 11. 
In the person of Jesus, man is exalted above the angels; yea, he 
himself is to attain a rank superior to theirs; for while Jesus pass- 
ed them by (v. 16), he laid down his life for us, in order to exalt us 
above them, 1 Cor. 6:3. Deeper and deeper still becomes the 
mystery. The debt of gratitude appears boundless, when viewed 
in this light; the baseness of our ingratitude and disobedience as 
boundless too ; and all that we can do is to lie down in the dust, 
overwhelmed with a sense of them, exclaiming at the same 
time with the prophet, ‘ Who is like unto thee? A God forgiving 


po 


iniquity, and passing by the Offences of thine heritage! 





Next. to the consideration, that the “law was dvatayels dv ayyé2wy,?? the grounds of 
its preeminence in the estimation of the Jews were, the exalted character of Moses, and the 
dignity and offices of the high priest, who was the instrument of reconciling the people to 
God, when they had lost his favour by sinning. In respect to both these points, the apostle 
undertakes to shew that the gospel has a preference, because that Jesus is superior. If he 
be compared with Moses as mw, a60t020¢, curator aedis sacrae, (0lzxov, vy, 2,3), he 
will be found to excel him. If he be compared with the high priest, his superiority, in every 
respect, is equally visible. The first comparison is made in 3: 2—6, and the warning against 
defection from the gospel that immediately follows it, is continued through 3: 7—19 to 4: 13. 
The writer then proceeds with the comparison of Christ as high priest, and extends it through 
the remainder of the doctrinal part of the epistle. 


* 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. 87 





CHAP. III. 


"Oder, whence, i. q. dia tovro, by which Chrysostom expresses 
the sense of it. It refers to place, in common usage ; but it is also 
illative, particularly in our epistle. 

The manner in which the writer makes his transition here, 
from one topic to another, is deserving of notice. He had just 
been shewing how and why Christ was a ‘‘ merciful and faithful 
high priest, and able to succour all who are tempted.” He now 
adds, o@ev, 1. e. allowing these things to be true, it follows, that 
we are under peculiar obligation to contemplate and well examine 
the Saviour’s character, before we venture to reject him. But in 
making this suggestion, the writer at the same moment introduces 
new topics for discussion, viz. the comparison of Christ with Mo- 
ses, and with the high priest under the Jewish dispensation. The 
transition is almost insensible, as it is actually introduced under 
the form of a deduction from the preceding discussion. 

* Adehgpot, as applied by Christians to each other, means, one 
of the same faith or profession, with the adjunct idea of possessing 
a friendly, brotherly feeling, Acts 9: 30. Lt: 29. 1 Cor. 5: 11. al. 
" Aytot, consecrated, devoted, i. e. to Christ, seé apart as Christians. 
So I understand this appellation. Holy, in the sense of possessing 
internal purity, the apostle did not mean to affirm that all were, 
whom he addressed ; for surely when the ancient prophets called the 
whole Jewish nation byw 4p (dycoe), or Wisp bY (Aaos wyeog), they 
did not mean to assert that every individual among them was spirif- 
ually sanctified. But to remind his brethren, (brethren in a dou- 
ble sense here, as they were also the writers kindred according to 
the flesh), that they had been consecrated to Christ, and set apart 
as his disciples, was altogether adapted to prepare them for the ex- 
hortation to fidelity which ensues. In a like sense, the ancient 
prophets called the whole body of the Jewish nation holy, %45p. 

Kinoews éxovoaviou uéroyzor, lit. partakers of the heavenly in- 
vitation. KaAnovg is the invitation given on the part of God and 
. Christ to men, to come and partake of the blessings proffered by 
the Christian religion. It does not appear, however, to designate 
the offers of the gospel, generally considered, and in reference to 
all men without discrimination ; for it is applied, in the New Tes- 


* 


“ 
88 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3:1. ~ 





tament, only to those who by profession are Christians. KA7jove, 
then,as the proffer of blessings to such; the invitation given to 
all the professed friends of the Christian religion, to accept the fa- 
vours which the Redeemer is ready to bestow, in case of their 
obedience. The epithet éovgaviov may mean, in this case, that 
the blessings proffered are of a celestial nature. So Wahl and oth- 
ers, who compare the phrase with 179 avw xArjoews, Phil. 3: 14. 
Thus interpreted, the implication of the passage would be, that the 
proffered blessings of the gospel were éxovgavee, in distinction 
from those offered under the law, i. e. they are of a higher, more 
spiritual, more sublime nature. But éacoveayviov may also mean, 
that the xAyjovg was given from heaven, i. e. by one from heaven, 
viz. Christ; comp. 12: 25 and 2:3. Understood in either way, 
it is apposite to the purpose of the writer, and well adapted to urge 
upon his readers their obligation to adhere to the Christian relig- 
ion. 

Karavonoare, observe well, consider attentively, perpendite, ad 
animum revocate ; and this, in order that they might not be tempt- 
ed to swerve from their fidelity to Christ, out of excessive regard to 
the Mosaic institutes; for Christ, as the writer proceeds to shew, 
was in all respects superior to Moses. 

Tov andotodov ....%ucov, the apostle and high priest of our 
religion. The appellation atdozodov, (whichis an anak Asyousvov 
as applied to Christ), has given rise to much philological and crit- 
ical discussion. The word itself may convey two ideas, nearly re- 
lated, but not identical. (1) “4m00rolo¢ is equivalent to 0 aneo- 
takuevog ; as Thomas Magister explains it, quoting Demosthenes 
as employing it in this manher. It means, then, any messenger, 
any person commissioned or sent to perform duties of any kind for 
another, and particularly to make known his will, desire, or com- 
mand ; in which sense it is commonly employed by the New Tes- 
tament writers. (2) The Jews applied the term =v, (from mbw 
mittere), to the minister of the synagogue, i. e. the person who pre- 
sided over it, and .directed all its officers and affairs, the curator 
of all its concerns, aedituus, negoti? aedis sacrae curator. See 
Buxtorf Lex. Chald. verbum mw, and Vitringa de Vet. Synag. 
Lib. III. p. 2. c.2. In either of these senses it may be under- 
stood, in the passage under consideration. Interpreted agreeably 
to the first sense of &ooroiog, the meaning would be, that Christ 


yy 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. 89 


<li NN apgce eas Sevan 1g pes) Nae EN gs ee ea 
is the messenger of God to men, in order to communicate his will, 
and to accomplish the business to be done for the establishment of 
the new dispensation. But the particular reason why he is called 
anvorodog here, lies, probably, in the comparison which the writer 
is about to make, of Jesus the head of the new dispensation with 
Moses the head of the old. When Moses received a divine com- 
mission to become the leader and head of the Israelites, God says 
to him, J.nnbw, LT have sent thee ; which idea is frequently repeat- 
ed, Ex.’3: 10, 12, 14, 15. Moses then was m°>¥, anoorokos, in 
respect to this important business. Jesus, in like manner, was 
sent on an errand of the like kind, but of still greater importance. 
He was sent by the Father for this purpose, John 3: 34, 5: 36, 37. 
6: 29. 10: 36 al. Now.as the writer was just about to make a 
comparison between Christ and Moses, it was very natural that he 
should call Christ édotodoy, i. e. one sent or commissioned of God, 
because Moses was thus sent ; as the passages above cited prove. 

We might acquiesce in this explanation, as most interpreters 
have done, were it not that one still better may be found, in the 
supposition that asoorodos is here employed in the second or Jew- 
ish sense, explained above. ‘The apostle proceeds immediately to 
speak of Moses and of Christ as presiding over, and administering 
the affairs of, the o/xo¢, committed respectively to them (vs. 2—A4) 5 
i.e. each was a “92kc7 bw, ayyshos éxxAnoias, curator aedis 
sacrae, anootodog in the Jewish sense. 'This certainly gives a 
meaning more apposite to the context, and indeed a sense which, 
in connexion with it, seems to be a necessary one. The general 
idea of being sent of God, or divinely commissioned, is retained ; in- 
asmuch as Moses was thus sent and commissioned, and with him 
the comparison is made. The meaning then is, that if the curator 
aedis sacrae et novae be compared with the curator aedis sacrae et 
antiquae, the result will be such as the sequel discloses. 

Kai doyssgéa, high priest. 'Two reasons may be given for this 
appellation ; the one, that in Ps. 110: 4, the Messiah is so named ; 
the other, that the writer means to compare him, in the sequel, as 
making atonement for men by the propitiatory sacrifice which he 
offered, with the high priest of the Jews who made expiation for 
the people. The latter, I regard as the principal reason of the 
appellation here. ” 

VOL. Il. 12 


90 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: I, 2. 





Tis Omodoyiac nuov, of our profession or confession; i. e. the 
apostle and high priest whom we have confessed or acknowledged 
as ours. This they had done, when they became Christians. 
“Ouohoyiag is used here as an adjective or participle; and the 
phrase is equivalent to andorohov yumy xai aoyreoea Ouodoyoune- 
voy, i. e. the apostle and high priest ro aliorews juwy (as Chrys- 
ostom paraphrases it), in whom we have believed, or whom we 
have acknowledged as ours. Comp. 2 Cor. 9: 13, ry unotayy 77S 
Omohoyias Yur, your professed subjection ; Heb. 16; 23. 4: 14. 

Others take ouwodoyiag in the sense of covenant, n°72, which 
the word sometimes has in profane writers; see Schleus. Lex. 
in verbum. This sense of the word would not be inapposite here, 
inasmuch as it would convey the idea of an engagement or cove- 
nant made with Christ, by those whom the apostle is addressing. 
But as this use of the word is not found in the New Testament, it 
would hardly be proper to admit it here. 

The writer now proceeds to shew the reason why the Hebrews 
ought attentively to regard Jesus, in respect to the two great points 
of comparison which he had hinted at, by applying to him the epi- 
thets anoorohos and aoyregers. 

2. Morey, faithful, i. e. he fully and truly performed the du- 
ties of his station. See 2: 17, where, in like manner, he is called 
meotos aoylegsvg. Others interpret avores, entrusted with, or, 
worthy of trust ; a sense, indeed, which the word sometimes has ; 
but it is not so apposite here. 7 xosoavee avrov, to him who 
constituted or appointed him, viz. emdorodov ; to him who sent 
him, John 10: 36; to him who made him 4°>W, curator, aedis sa- 
crae. So émoinoe, Mark. 3: 4. 

Te ¢ oinm wvrov, his house, i. e. family, meaning the Jewish na- 
tion, or, his worshipping people. Ocxog evidently does not mean 
temple here, for that was not built in the time of Moses; nor does 
it mean tabernacle, for over that Aaron presided, and not Moses. 
It means, then, the spiritual house committed to Moses, i. e. the 
Jewish nation who were to be guided, regulated, and instructed in 
spiritual things, by the revelations which he gave them. So Chrys- 
ostom, who substitutes Aeov as an explanation of oéxov. So in 
English, we use house for family, and church (otxog Oeov) for the 
worshippers in it. It is, moreover, only in this way, that a com- 
parison can be made between Moses and Christ ; as the latter was 


- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 2, 3. 91 


ee LN 


not the minister of any literal house, but curator aedis Dei sacrae et 
spritealis. Comp, | Tim. 3:15. 1 Pet. 2: 5, 01K0S TYEVMATLXOS. 
Eph. 2: 20—22. Heb. 3: 6. 

The sentiment of v. 2 is, that with regard to fidelity in dis- 
charging the duties of his office, as head of the new dispensation, 
Christ yields not in any respect to Moses, who, (as the Scripture tes- 
tifies, Num. 12: 7), was faithful in respect to all his duties toward 
the people of God, that were committed to his care. In this res- 
pect there is no inferiority. In another respect, however, Christ 
may justly claim great superiority over Moses; as the writer now 
goes on to shew. 

3. Aoéng, honour, dignity, regard ; governed in the genitive 
by akimroe. “Héiwras, is worthy, deserves, is counted worthy. 
’ 4év0w also means, not unfrequently, to obtain, to acquire; e€. g. 
Of narakwnOEevres TIS TOU mVEVMATOS yaOvtos, those who have ob- 
tained the grace of the Spirit, Chrysostom I. p. 730. Tig énvyvo~ 
GES TOU OvtOS uN xaTaELOUMEVOS, not having obtained a knowledge 
of what is real, Basil I. p. 515. Ina similar way, it is also used 
in the classics; as toy peyiotwy a&covpevos, having obtained the 
greatest honours, Lys. Orat. p. 10). ed. Taylor. But still, this is 
not the usual sense of the word; nor does it so well fit the passage 
under consideration, as the other and usual meaning, although 
many commentators have preferred it. 0£&¢ neon Mwvony, glo- 
ry in comparison with Moses, as in Hebrew "wi273 “25. See on 
1: 4, 9, where zoe is employed in the same way. 

Ka® Goov may signify, in proportion as, as much as, and may 
have relation, here, to wAelovog in the first member of the verse. 
The usual Greek method of expression in such cases is, room... 
dom etc. But I prefer the sense given in the version, because the 
nature of the proposition seems to require it. So Schulz, Eng. 
Version, alii. 

IDsiove typjy x. t. 3. he who builds a house, has more honour 
than the house; i. e. the difference between the honour due to Mo- 
ses and that due to Christ, is as great as between the honour due to 
the founder of a house [family] and that which should be paid to 
the family which he founds; or, between the honour due to the 
architect that framed a building, and that due to the building itself. 
It is difficult to say in which of these senses the writer meant that 
the words should be taken. Either fits his purpose. Either is de- 


92 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 3. 





signed to shew that Christ, at the same time that he is the head of 
the new spiritual house, is also the founder of it; while Moses, who 
was at the head of the ancient spiritual house, was himself only one 
of the household. As a steward or overseer of a house, while he is 
curator of all in the house, is still but a servant ; so Moses, as is as- 
serted in v.5, was but a servant; while Christ, who was curator, 
was also Son, and therefore “ heir and lord of all.” The point of 
comparison between Moses and Christ, in which the latter appears 
to have a decided preference, is not the being at the head of God’s 
house or family, (for such an office Moses sustained) ; but it con- 
sists in this, viz. that while Moses was curator, he was also #soa- 
mwv; but while Christ was curator, he was at the same time vios, 
and xaraoxevacrys orxov. 

Karaoxevalw means, to furnish, to fit up, to make ready, i. e 
for use ; also, to construct, prepare, build, condere, exstruere. In 
some cases it seems to combine the idea of constructing and furnish- 
ing, both of which indeed are included under the general idea of 
preparing or making ready for use ; e. g. Heb. 9: 2—6. The Sev- 
enty sometimes used this word, in order to translate Muy, e.g. in 
Prov. 23:5. 2 Chron. 32:5; sometimes they employed it as corres- 
ponding to 843, as in Is. 40: 28. 43:7. So the book of Wisdom, 
9: 2, “ By thy wisdom xareoxevaoas tov avOowmor, thou hast creat- 
ed [formed] man.” In our text, xaraoxevacag avror, scil. o¢xor, is 
equivalent to the Latin, condere domum. But as o¢zog here means, 
family, household, so xaraoxsvaoas must be taken in a sense that 
will correspond to this, viz, that of establishing, instituting, found- 
ing ; which is evidently the meaning of the phrase. F 

Others render the last clause of the verse thus; znasmuch as he 
who founded the household hath greater honour from the house, un- 
derstanding, zeu2}v oixou to be the honour which the house renders, 
and thus making o/xov dependent on teurjv instead of mielove. 
Storr translates the whole verse thus; For Christ hath a preference 
above Moses, the greater, in proportion as this house is more highly 
estimated by its founder. But these methods of rendering, (to say 
nothing of the improbable and forced construction which they give 
to the language of the verse), would constrain us to lose sight of the 
apodosis, which the latter part of the verse evidently contains. 
Christ, says the apostle, has more glory than Moses. How ? or, 
how much more? The answer is; ‘ As much more as is due to the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 3, 4. 93 


founder of a family, for, to the architect of a building], above that 
which is to be paid to the family itself, [or, to the edifice which is 
reared].’ In other words, Christ is to be honoured as the head and 
founder of the otxoc, which has been erected ; Moses, only as the 
head ; for he himself was still a part of the ovxog itself, wo Oega- 
stov v.5. Interpreted in any other way, the whole force of the com- 
parison seems to vanish. In this way it is (to say the least) intelli- 
gible, if not quite simple. If the reader wishes to see the endless 
discrepancies among critics about this and the following verse, he 
may consult Wolfii Curae Philol., or Dindorf’s edition of Ernest: 
in Ep. ad Hebraeos. 

4, This verse has been a kind of offendiculum criticorum, in past 
ages, and has never yet, in any commentary which J have seen, been 
satisfactorily illustrated. The difficulty lies, not in the simple sen- 
timent of the verse by itself considered, (for there is none in this re- 
spect); nor in the words, which in themselves are not obscure ; but 
in discovering and explainiug the connexion in which this verse 
stands with the context, and how it modifies or affects it. If the 
verse be entirely omitted, and the third verse be immediately con- 
nected with the fifth, there seems to be nothing wanting, nothing 
omitted that is at all requisite to finish the comparison which the 
writer is making. Nay, on account of the difficulty which adheres 
to the 4th verse, the mind is greatly relieved by the omission of it ; 
and little is then presented, which raises doubts or scruples about 
the object of the writer. ‘There is no evidence, however, that the 
verse in question is a mere gloss; at least, none from manuscripts 
or versions that is of any value. We must receive it, then, as a 
part of the text, the integrity of which, (however difficult the pas- 
sage may be), cannot be made to depend on our ability to explain it. 

Tlag yao otzxog.... 009, I translate thus; every house must 
have some builder, or, is built by some one; and he who formed all 
things is God. But what are the all things (t@ aavra) which are 
formed or built? The universe? Or all o¢xoe, all dispensations, 
viz. both the Jewish and Christian? The context seems to demand 
the latter meaning. ‘The former has common usage in its favour. 
Is it appropriate to construe it agreeably to this usage? It is di- 
rectly to the writer’s purpose, if he can shew, that every dispensa- 
tion must of necessity have some founder, and that this founder was 
Christ. But how is this shewn? To say that God, simply consid- 





94 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 4, 5. 


ered, was the author of all things, would not be to shew that Christ 
was the founder of the Jewish and Christian o/xov. Indeed, I can 
see no possible connexion of this proposition, with the object which 
the writer has in view. Nor can I see how Christ is shewn by him 
to be a founder at all, unless I understand him to assert this to be 
the fact, because Christ is divine, or is de0¢. The argument would 
then stand thus ; ‘ God is the author of all things, (and, by conse- 
quence, of the Jewish and Christian o¢zov) ; Christ isGod ; of course 
he must be regarded as the original author or founder of these dis- 
pensations.” The fact itself that Christ is de0g, the writer surely 
could not hesitate to assert, after what he has said, chap. 1: 8—12. 
John 1: 1 asserts the same thing; as Paul also does, in Rom. 9: 5, 
and in other places. I must regard the expression here, as predi- 
cated on what the writer had said in chap. 1., respecting the Son. 
The amount, then, of the reasoning seems to be; ‘ Consider that 
Christ, as d<og and the former of all things, must be the author too 
of the Jewish and Christian dispensations ; which shews that a glo- 
ry belongs to him, not only in his mediatorial office and as being at 
the head of the new dispensation, but also as the founder both of 
this and the Jewish dispensation, in his divine character ; while 
Moses is to be honoured only as the head of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion, in the quality of a commissioned superintendent, but not as 
author and founder.’ 

All other methods of constructing this passage fail of making it 
contribute to the writer’s purpose ; and this is, with me, an insuper- 
able objection against them. To make &0¢, in verse 4th, refer sim- 
ply to God the Father, is, at least, making the apostle say something 
very different from what contributes to his purpose, if it be not at 
variance with it. I propose this exegesis, however, only as being 
that which, after repeated investigations, I have felt myself con- 
strained to adopt by the reasoning in the context, and the design of 
thé writer; not as one so indubitably clear as to admit of no spe- 
cious objection. ‘The whole passage is so obscure, that no one can 
reasonably expect, as yet, a very convincing interpretation of it. If 
probability can be attained, it is as much as can be fairly demand- 
ed, at present. , 

5. Ev dl ro otxw avrov, in all his house ; not éni tov otxov 
avtov, over his house, as it is expressed in the following verse, where 
the writer speaks of Christ. I think the writer means here to make 


# 
-* COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 5. 95 





a distinction, by these different modes of expression, between the 
relation of Moses to the house in which he was Osoanwy, and that 
of Christ to the house over which he was as vide. ‘The former was 
év tH oLxw, in the house, i.e. he himself belonged to the family of 
God, was simply a member of it in the capacity of deganwy ; while 
the latter was én? rev ofzov, over the house, i. e. lord of the house, 
founder and proprietor of it. 

Avrov, uts, i. e. God’s house, both in v.2 and here. God’s 
household means, those who profess to be his worshippers, to belong 
to him. In both cases, evzov might refer to Christ, were it not that 
in Num. 12: 7 (from which the passage is quoted), the language is, 
my house, *m°2; and it is God who says this. The sense, however, 
would not be materially changed, by referring auzrou to Christ. The 
scope of the sentence does not depend on this ; for whether you say 
o¢xo¢ aurov is the family of God, or of Christ, the same persons are 
designated by the word ocxog, in both cases. 

Ozoanwy, according to general usage, differs from dovdog and 
oizécng, being a more honorable appellation. E. g. the correlate of 
dovios and ofxerns is dsonorys; but Peganwy is related to NATO, 
xvecov, or Baotdevg. In English, we should call the former a ser- 
vant or a slave; the latter, an assistant, an usher, a helper, &c. 
The Heb. 332, however, means servants of every or any rank. But 
mim 32%, servant of Jehovah, is always an appellation of honour. 
In the East, courtiers of the highest rank pride themselves in the 
appellation of king’s servants. The word d@eganwy is very happily 
applied by the Seventy, and after them in the present case by our 
author, to Moses; who was a servant of Jehovah, in a highly hon- 
ourable sense. Comp. Josh. 1: 1,2. After all, the Seoanwy is in- 
ferior to the aaryo or xvevog of a family. Moses, therefore, was 
inferior to Christ, who was xvovog ofxou Osov. 

Lis wagrigeoy trav AcknOnooueveny, for testimony to those things 
which were to be declared, i. e. to make disclosures to the Israelites 
of those things which were to be revealed, under the ancient dispen- 
sation, or during the Mosaic period. The meaning is, that Moses 
was a Ssganow of God, for delivering to the people the ancient ora- 
cles. Mogrvgsov may signify either instruction, or declaration, pub- 
lication; just as agrueéw signifies in the New Testament, both 
docere, instituere, and declarare, notum facere; as may be seen in 
the Lexicons. .dadySnooudvoy may also mean, either things to be 


96 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 5, 6. 





announced, published, or, things to be inculcated, taught. The sense 
will not be materially altered by either method of translation. The 
meaning will still be, simply, that Moses was to be the instrument 
of delivering to the people divine communications, or, he was to 
teach them in matters of religion. 

6. Xovoros oé..... éouev yusic, but Christ as a Son, over his 
house, whose house we are, i.e. to whose family we belong, we who 
have made a Christian profession ; meaning himself and those whom 
he addressed. 'This is as much as to say, ‘ We now belong not to 
the house over which Moses was placed ;_ but to that which Christ 
governs or administers.’ duro, his, i. e. God’s, our English trans- 
lators have rendered as if written gurov, sc. égurov, his own; so 
Beza, Vogel, Erasmus, Heinrichs, and others. But Stephens, Mill, 
Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Knapp, and Titmann read qurov ; as 
I have translated. 

_ The writer adds, however, that we really belong to the house 
which Christ governs, gavneo tiv magénolav...... RAT HOLOMEY, 
provided we hold fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. 
Tla¢génoia means originally, the liberty of speaking boldly, without 
fear or restraint; and comes etymologically from maga and 67ovs. 
The secondary sense is, boldness, confidence. Kavynuo primarily 
means, gloriatio, the act of glorying, or, that in which we glory or 
joy ; secondarily, it means, joy, glory, etc. I take the phrase as a 
Hendiadys. °“/Anidog is the subject, and xavynuc qualifies it; as 
is often the case with similar constructions, in many parts of the 
sacred writings; e.g. 1 Tim. 6: 17. Philem. 6. Rom. 6:4. Col. 2: 5. 
2 Cor. 4: 7. Gal. 2:14; where the genitive, (as in the instance be- 
fore us), is the principal’ noun, and the other noun joined with it, 
(whatever case it may be in), serves only in the office of an adjec- 
tive. More usually, indeed, the noun in the genitive serves the of- 
fice of an adjective, both in Hebrew and in Hebrew Greek. But 
the above cases shew, that the noun which precedes the genitive, 
not unfrequently serves the same end; and such too is the case in 
Hebrew, as may be seen in Heb. Gram. § 161. 6. 

The confidence and joyful hope here mentioned, is that which 
the Christian religion inspires. This must be held Ge@aiay, firm, 
steadfast. Bsfaiay here agrees, in respect to grammatical con- 
struction, with za¢@6yolar the remoter noun in the preceding phrase, 
(as is frequently the fact in such cases), but it is related to the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 6—8. 97 


whole phrase, in regard to its meaning. Lig réhousg, to the end, i. e. 
of lifé ; in other words, ‘ We must persevere, to the last, in main- 
taining our Christian profession; we must never abandon the con- 
fident and joyful hope which it inspires, if we mean to be consider- 
ed as belonging to the family of Christ.’ 

_ 7. Avo, wherefore, i. e. because Christ is superior to Moses, and 
has higher claims upon us, hearken, Christian brethren, to the ad- 
monitions which I give you, in the words with which the Israelites 
of old were warned. 





Kade réyec to neva TO ayeor, i. e. as the divine word, giv- 
en by the influence of the Holy Spirit, saith; comp. Acts 1: 16. 
28: 25. This is one of the various ways of appealing to the Scrip- 
ture, which was usual in the time of the apostles; and which is 
still practised by our churches. It involves the idea, that the Holy 
Scriptures are given by divine inspiration, are Oednvevoroe. 

Sijueoov, to day, now, at present, like the Hebrew D577, to 
which it corresponds. “Lav rig porns avrov axovonte, when or 
whilst ye hear his voice. °Eav, when, like the Hebrew ox, to which 
it corresponds; comp. John 6: 62. 12:32. 13:20. 14:3. So 
Sept. for ax, Prov. 3: 24. Is. 24: 13, et alibi. Tis Pwvns avrov, 
i. e. his warning voice, his admonition. 

8. Mn cxlnovyyte ras xaodias vuayv. To harden the heart, 
is to make it insensible. In this case, to harden the heart, is to 
remain insensible to divine admonition, to neglect it, to act in a 
contumacious manner. The form oxAyovvw is of the later Greek. 
The classical writers used oxAnoovy, and this in a physical sense 
only, not in a moral one. 

Toapanixoeoue corresponds here to the Hebrew =2°9%, strife, 
contention. It is nota classic word; but it is employed by the 
Septuagint. The meaning of it is, exacerbation, provocation, embit- 
tering, from nexoaive, to be bitter, to embitter. It is here applied 
to designate the act of the Israelites, who provoked the displeas- 
ure of God ; in particular, to their unbelief and murmuring at Massah 
or Meribah, Ex: 17: 7, and afterwards at other places. 

Kate viv 7ugoav tov mevgnouon év ty eer, when they tempt- 
ed [God] in thedesert. Karo ryv 7ueoav, Hebrew 25*5 (for 24932), 
asin the day that, when. Tlesyasuov, of temptation, i. e. their 
unbelief and murmuring put the patience of God to a trial, (speak- 
ing after the manner of men). Jfevgagw means, to solicit to do 

VOL, I. 13 


98 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 8——10. 





evil, but also, to prove, to assay. When the Seriptures speak of 

_men as tempting God, the meaning is, that men do that which 
_ puts the divine patience, forbearance, goodness, etc, to a trial, i. e. 

make it difficult, as it were, to preserve a strict regard to these. 
Dindorf is mistaken, when he asserts, on this passage, that mecoatw 
is never used by the Greek writers in the sense of enticing to sin; 
for nevpay (i. q. meegagery) yuvoixa is a very common phrase, in 
the best Greek writers. 

9. Ov, when, adverb, i. q. Gmov, as Oecumenius remarks. 
Oi naréoes vucv, i.e. the ancient Israelites. “Ameigaoay us .. 
Edoxiuaoay me, tried and proved me, i.e. put me to a thorough 
trial ; the repetition of a synonymous word merely denoting inten- 
sity. 

Kai sidov, although they saw. So xai in John 3: 32. 14: 30. 
17: 25. Rev. 3: 1, et al. In the same manner the Hebrew 4, Gen. 
18: 27. Mal. 2:14, et al. Zsooagaxovta #r7 is joined (in the He- 
brew) with the following verse, forty years was I grieved, etc. But 
this depends on the punctation system of the Masorites, which the 
apostle has not followed. In regard to the sense, it matters not 
with which verb it is joined. If they tempted God forty years, 
he was grieved by their conduct during the same time ; and if he 
was grieved by them for that time, it was because they tempted 
him. 

10. Avo, wherefore, i.e. because they tempted me, etc. This 
word is not in the Hebrew nor Septuagint. The writer has added 
it to the quotation, in order to render the sense of it more impres- 
sive or explicit. 

Toy Ca, Twas indignant, was offended at. The word is 
Hellenistic. The Greeks use oy@éw and 679ifw. According to 
etymology, it consists of sos, to, against, upon, and 6y%n, bank, 
shore. It is applied primarily to a ship infringing upon the shore, 
or, as we say, running aground. It answers to the Hebrew yap, 
DAP, ON, etc. 

Th yeved éxetvy, the men of that age, or, as we say in English, 
the generation then upon the stage. 

‘Asi nhavavres ty xaQdig, the corresponding Hebrew is, Dy 
pt ash “wh, a people of erring heart are they, the word asi having 
nothing in the Original which corresponds to it. Still, the sense 
of the Hebrew is tantamount to what the apostle (with the Septua- 


e 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 10, 11. 99 








gint) has expressed in the Greek. To err in heart may mean, 
either to err in judgment, or in disposition, intention ; for the He- 
brew 235, 3, and after it the Greek xaodia, means, either animus, 
judicium, or, mens, cogitatio, desiderium. I understand xagdie 
here as used according to the Hebrew idiom, (in which it is often 
pleonasti¢, at least it seems so to us), SO that the phrase imports 
simply, They always err, i. e. they are continually departing from 
the right way. 

Arod 62 obn Zyvwour reg ddovg mov, neither (dé ovx means, 
neither) have they approved my doings. Tiwaoxw (like the He- 
brew 3°37, Ps. 1: 6.36: 11) means, to approve, to like, to be pleas- 
ed with, Matt. 7: 23. John 10: 14, 15, 27. 2 Tim. 2: 19. “Odos. 
corresponds to the Hebrew ‘733, which means, counsel, design, 
purpose, also operation, manner of conducting or acting towards 
any one. In this last sense, I take the word to be employed here. 
The meaning is, ‘The Israelites had been discontented with the 
manner in which God had dealt with them in the wilderness ; they 
disapproved his manner of treating them.’ See, for an illustration 
of this, Deut. 8: 2—5. 4: 32—37, and particularly 29: 2—4. 

11. ‘Qc, so that, aconjunction ; see Wahl on ofc, II. 2. “Ev ™ 
ooyn mov, in my indignation, viz. that which their unbelief and 
contumacy had excited. Comp. naoanioaoum in v. 8th, which 
means the provocation given by the Israelites. 

Ei civehevoovras, they shall not enter. Ei borrows its negative 
meaning from the Hebrew px, to which it corresponds. ‘The He- 
brews used px, in the latter clause of an oath which ran thus; 
God do so to me, tr (ON) I do thus, etc. See the full form in 1 
Sam. 3:17. 2 Sam. 3:35. 2K. 6:31. The former part of this 
oath was sometimes omitted, and o& had then the force of a strong 
negative ; see 2 Sam. I1: 11. 1 Sam. 14: 45, alibi; vide Ges. Heb. 
Lex. under px, no. 6. So in Ps. 95: 11, 72827 DN contains a strong 
negative ; which the Septuagint (and our author after them) have 
rendered, «f ecoshevoorvtae. 

The passage exhibits God as speaking after the manner of 
men, and as affected, like them, with feelings of indignation. The 
idea conveyed by such expressions plainly is, that God, as a meas- 
ure of justice to the Israelites for their wickedness, gave solemn 
assurance that they should not enter into his rest. 

Eig tiv xoranavoily pov, Hebrew snmiz, my rest, means, 


wh 


100 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 11—13. 





such rest as I enjoy, or such as I have prepared or provided. See 
more, on the subject of this rest, in the commentary on Chap. IV. 

12. Mymore éorar.... ancorias, lest there be in any of you 
an evil and unbelieving heart. ° Anvotias, of unbelief, is here used 
as an adjective to qualify x«gd/a, according to an idiom very com- 
mon both in the Old and New Testament. 

"Ev t@ anocrjvese ano Geov Carros, in apostatising from the 
living God, or rather, so that he may apostatise, etc. °~Anoornvas 
is to revolt, to apostatise, to make defection from. Ozov Savros, 
living God, either in opposition to idols, which had no life ; as in 
Acts 14: 15. 1 Thess. 1: 9. 1 Tim. 4: 10; or, living may mean 
immortal, eternal, as probably it does in Heb. 9: 14. 10: 31. 12: 22. 
I Pet. 1: 23, and often in the Old Testament. Thus perennial wa- 
ter is called wy, John 4: 11. 7:38. So the commentators and 
lexicographers. Perhaps, after all, Gay in such cases may mean, 
the author, or giver of life; comp. John 6: 51,57. 7: 38. 

The sense of the passage taken together is, ‘ Beware, brethren, 
of an unbelieving and evil heart, such as the Israelites possessed, 
lest, like them, you apostatise from the living God,’ i. e. lest you 
apostatise from the religion of Christ, which he has required you to 
receive and to maintain, and thus perish like ancient Israel who 
revolted from God. 

13. “Aika nogaxadsire éxvtovs, but admonish one another. 
“Favrol, in the New Testament and in the classics, is often used 
as the equivalent of aAAndoe; and so I understand it here. 

Ka éxaorny juéoav, every day, i.e. constantly, habitually. 
“Ayows ob tO onueoov xodeirot, either [xargov] ov x. 7. A, or ov 
may be the adverb of time,*as in v. 9th. AAgiras, like the Heb. 
NAP, NIpr. zs. See Wahl’s Lexicon, and Gesenius. ‘The mean- 
ing is, ‘ daily, while you have opportunity, admonish one another.’ 
In co o7jueoor, the article is joined, (as it often is), with an adverb 
which expresses the sense of a noun ; constructio ad sensum. 

“lea uy oxdnguvdn wig .... éuagriag, so that no one may be 
hardened by sinful delusion. _Anary TH @maotiae Means, the sin- 
ful delusion which false teachers or Judaizing zealots might occa- 
sion; or, that delusion into which they might be led, by their op- 
pressive condition arising from persecution, or by any allurements 
of a worldly nature; so that they would become insensible to the 
warnings Which they had received, and might abandon their Chris- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 13—16. 101 


ee ee npn Pe nnn ec cESESSnNART EG TGSanaaE 


tian profession. This would be a delusion indeed, and be highly 
sinful. Mutual daily admonition, the apostle intimates, would tend 
to prevent this evil. 

14. Méroyou yao tov Xovorov yeyovaper, we are, or, we shall 
be partakers of the blessings which Christ bestows. That Xover0s 
is sometimes put for the Christian religion, and sometimes for the 
blessings which are proffered by it, may be seen in the lexicons. 

‘Eavneg thy aoyiv.... xaraozouer, if we hold fast, unto the 
end, our former confidence. Tnv agyny in Un00TAGEWS, 1. q. TH 
nowrnyy niotev, | Tim. 5: 12. The sentiment is, ‘Continue, to the 
end of life, to exercise confidence in Christ, and you shall obtain the 
reward which he has promised ;’ see wéyou téhovs, in v. 6 above. 

15. “Ev tw déyeo9o, in respect to what is said, or, in regard to 
the declaration, viz. the declaration which follows, or, the quotation 
of what had before been cited. “Ay rw AgyeoOau is equivalent to év 
z1@ Agysev, 8: 13, or to xara r0 leyouevov. The design of this ex- 
pression is, merely to remind the reader of what had just been cited 
from the Old ‘Testament, a part only of which is now repeated, and 
‘ the rest is left to be supplied by the reader’s recollection. 

Dijusoov zav 2.r.h. now, while (see ev v.7) you hear his voice, 
etc. 

16. Tives yao axovoartes nagenixgatvay ; So with Griesbach, 
Knapp, Titmann, and others, I prefer to accent and punctuate this 
clause. The common editions have revég (accented on the ulti- 
mate), and meaning some, instead of tive the interrogative, mean- 
ing who? They also omit the interrogation point after maoaenizoae- 
vov. According to this last mode of exhibiting the text, it must be 
rendered (as in our English version), For some when they had heard 
did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses ; 
which is altogether inapposite to the design of the apostle. The 
true rendering I take to be, Who now were they, that when they 
heard did provoke [the Lord ?] Or, Who, let me ask (see on yao, 
Wahl, no. 1. b. 8.) were they, etc. The design of this and the fol- 
lowing questions is, to lead the minds of the readers to consider the 
specific sin, viz. unbelief, which occasioned the ruin of the ancient 
Israelites, and which would involve their posterity in the like con- 
demnation. 

"ALN ov mavres.... Mavoemg, rather, were they not all who 
came out of Egypt by Moses? °Adde, rather, or, nay. The same 


102 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 16, 17. 





form occurs in Luke 17: 8; ‘* Who of you, having a servant plough- 
ing, or tending sheep, will say to him when he returns from the 
field, Come and sit down immediately at the table? Will he not ra- 
ther say, or, nay, will he not say, to him, (ad ovyi éoet aro), pre- 
pare my supper, etc?’ The force of oda, in our text, it is not dif- 
ficult to perceive. The writer first asks, “‘ Who now were those, 
that when they had heard divine warnings, still provoked the Lord?” 
He then, as though the question in this form were almost superflu- 
ous, immediately adds, “‘ Might I not rather ask, or, nay, might I 
not ask, Did not all who came out of Egypt do this?” He means to 
intimate by this, that the number who embrace error cannot sanc- 
tion it; mor can unanimity in unbelief render it any more excusa- 
ble. Consequently, that the great body of the Jews rejected the 
Messiah, at the time then present, and urged the Christian converts 
to do the same, would be no excuse for apostasy. IJavre¢ is not to 
be taken in the strict metaphysical or mathematical sense here, any 
more than in multitudes of other places ; e. g. ‘ Adl Judea went out 
to John to be baptised, confessing their sins, Matt. 3: 5, 6;’ ‘all 


men came to Jesus, to be baptised of him, John 3: 26’ and so of- ° 


ten. Of the adults, only Caleb and Joshua among the Israelites are 
excepted, as not having taken part in the murmurings against the 
Lord, Num. 14: 30. Of course, there could be no scruples in the 
apostle’s mind about applying the word meres in this case, just as 
it is applied in a multitude of others, viz. to designate great multi- 
tudes or the great majority. 

Awe. Mwiioéws, by Moses, means ‘under his guidance, by his in- 
strumentality. ‘ , 

17. Tio 02... . én, and with whom was he indignant for for- 
ty years? Above, in the quotation v. 10, forty years is connected 
with eidoy ‘ra zoya wov. But the sense of the whole passage is 
not materially changed, by the manner of expression in v.17. It 
is true that the Israelites saw the works of the Lord for forty years, 
and that he expressed his indignation against them during that 
time, until the generation who had rebelled were destroyed. 

Ouyi toig apagrynoace; was it not with those who had sinned? 
Ernesti and Dindorf labour to shew that &uwotcyw means the same 
here as anevGew. Doubtless it includes the sin of unbelief; but it 
is of itself more generic than e@ev0éw, and includes various sins of 


7 


COMMENATRY ON HEB. 3: 17—19. 103 





the Israelites, such as rebellion, murmurings, etc., the consequence 
of unbelief. 

Ta xohe, lit. members, such as arms, legs. It is here put, how- 
ever, by synecdoche, for the whole body, and corresponds to the 
Hebrew 5°35, corpses, in Num. 14: 29, 32; to which passages 
the apostle here refers. ”#neoe in Greek, and the corresponding 
Hebrew 53, are both used to designate the prostrate condition of 
dead bodies, or, the falling down dead. ‘The whole phrase may be 
thus paraphrased, ‘ Who perished in the desert.’ 

18. Tior dé omoos .. . xatanavory aurou ; to whom did he swear 
(see Num. 14: 23, 28--30. Deut. 1: 34, 35), that they should not 
enter into his rest, except to those who disbelieved ? . 

In Num. 14: 23, 28-30, is an account of an oath, on the part 
of Jehovah, that the rebellious Israelites should not enter into the 
land, which he had sworn to their fathers should be given to them, 
i. €. in case they were obedient. In Deut. 1: 34, 35, there is an- 
other mention of a like oath, viz, that they should not enter into 
the goodly land, pledged by oath to their fathers. But in neither 
case is the word, rest, employed. The reasoning of the apostle, 
however, in the chapter before us, would lead us to suppose, that 
the manner in which the unbelieving Jews were declared, in the 
above passages, to be excluded from the goodly land, and the rea- 
sons stated for that exclusion, necessarily implied exclusion from 
the heavenly Canaan also, or, from the rest of God. 

19. Koi Blénouev.... 00 anvoriay, we see, then, that they 
could not enter in, because of unbelief. Kai, then, in the apodosis of 
a sentence, or in a connected series of reasoning, as here. See 
Wahl on zai, I. 2, and comp. Gesen. Heb. Lex. on 4, no. 5. 


104 COMMENTARY ON HEB. IV. 











& 


The writer having thus appealed, for the sake of warning, to the example and consequen- 
ces of unbelief among the Israelites of old in the wilderness, proceeds now further to confirm 
the application of what he had been saying to those whom he addressed, and to remove objec- 
tions which might be raised against this application. Two objections, he seems to apprehend, 
might probably be raised against the use which he had made of the citation from the Old Tes- 
tament; the one, that the rest there spoken of meant only, a rest in the land of Canaan, or, 
the quiet possession of the promised earthly inheritance ; the other, that the ancient Israelites 
were excluded from the promised rest, on account of murmuring and rebellion, crimes not 
charged upon those whom the apostle addressed. The writer has deemed it expedient, and it 
Was proper, that both of these objections to the use which he had made of the Old Testament 
Scripture should be removed, before he proceeded further with his main design. 

In 4:1, he brings forward the assertion, that the promise of entering into the rest of God 
still remains, addressed to the Hebrew Christians, as it was to the Israelites of old. In v. 2 
he proceeds to repeat the idea, (for the sake of deeply impressing it), that blessings are an- 
nounced to us (to Christians) in like manner as to the ancient Hebrews; and he now adds, 
that they failed to obtain the proffered blessings through wnbelief. These declarations involve 
two propositions ; the first, that the blessings in question must be of a spiritual nature; the 
second, that unbelief is the great cause of that sin, which excludes from the enjoyment of them. 
The last of these propositions he does not formally labour to establish, as he does the other: 
because the evidence of it is involved in the quotation which he had made, in chap. 2: 7—11; 
for it is there affirmed, that after all which the Israelites had seen of the works of God, for forty 
years, in the desert, they still tempted and provoked him, i.e. they gave no credit to all the 
testimonies which he had set before them of his fidelity toward his promises, and of his love 
and pity forthem; nor did they believe his comminations against the disobedient. Conse-~ 
quently, they were excluded, by this wnbelief, from his rest. 

But what is the vest in question? Is it quiet possession of the land of Canaan? No, says 
the apostle. Believers now enter into the rest (v. 3), i. e. the same kind of rest as was ancient- 
ly proffered. Moreover, God calls it *@Té7Vav0l “OV, MY rest, i.e. (adds he) such rest as 
God enjoyed, after he had completed the creation of the world; consequently spiritual, heaven- 
ly rest. This is plain, (as he goes on to shew in v. 4), from what the Seripture says, Gen. 2: 
2, concerning the rest of God. Again, it is involved in the very form of expression, in Ps. 95: 
11, viz. MY rest, v. 5. 

‘ Now,’ continues he (v. 6), ‘as some must enter into the rest in question, (for surely God 
would not provide amd proffer a rest altogether in vain) ; ‘and since they, to whom it was of- 
fered, lost it through wnbelief—[it follows that believer's only can attain to it.]’ But this last 
idea the author has not expressed. He has left the reader to supply it; as he may do without 
any difficulty, from what the writer had already said in vs. 2,3. The illustration and confir- 
mation of this truth, is plainly one of the objects which the writer has in view, (as was stated 
above); and while vs. 3—5 shew that the rest spoken of is of a heavenly nature ; ‘the object of 
v. Gis, to intimate that unbelief was the sin which excluded from it. 

. But lest there might still be some doubt about the nature of the rest to which the ancient 
Scriptures refer, the writer resumes the argument respecting the nature of it, and adduces oth- 
er considerations, to shew that it must be spiritual and heavenly. 

‘ Moreover,’ says he (v. 7), ‘ David himself, (who liv ed® nearly five centuries after the land 
of promise had been occupied by the Israelites) —David speaks of ‘a definite time, then present, 
in which he warns his cotemporaries against losing the rest which God had promised to the 
believing and obedient ; (a rest of the same nature as that from which the Israelites of old had 
been excluded, as may be seen in Ps. 95).? ‘ Now,’ (adds he), ‘if Joshua, who gave Israel 
possession of the land of Canaan, had given them the rest to which the Scripture refers 
when it speaks of God’s rest, then the Psalmist could not have spoken, so many centuries af- 
terwards, of a rest that was still proffered to Israel, and from which the unbelieving would be 
excluded, v. 9.’ ‘Hence,’ he concludes, ‘it is evident, since the rest which is spoken of is not 
of a temporal nature, but of a spiritual enduring nature, that there remains a rest for the peo- 
ple of God, i, e. believers.’ 

That the main object of the writer, in chap. 4: 1—9, is to prove the spiritual and abiding 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. Iv. 104 

FUER a ee 
nature of the proffered rest, is stated so explicitly in v. 10, that there can be no reasonable 
doubt left in respect to his intention; “ For,” says he, “he who enters into his [God's] rest, 

rests from his own labours, as God did from his.” That is, he who attains to the rest proffer- a 

ing y 








ed to Israel in the time of David, and to the more ancient Israelites in the wilderness, attains 

to a rest like that of God, (described in Gen. 2: 2) ; i. e. he will rest from the toils, and trials, 

and sorrows of a probationary state, and enjoy a happiness heavenly and divine, in a better 
“ world above. 

_The writer then proceeds, in his usual manner, to close the topic by adding exhortations 
diligently to seek the rest in question, and awful warnings against incurring, by unbelief, the 
righteous indignation of that holy and omnipotent Judge, unto whom their account must be ren- 
dered, vs. 11—13. : : 

In regard to the views of our author, relative to the subject of the rest, which is proffered 
in the Old Testament to all who are believing and obedient, they doubtless differ very much 
from many. commentators and critics of the present day, who are distinguished for their litera- 
ryattainments. But it will not follow from this, that they are erroneous. Certain it is, that 
all the writers of the New Testament had similar views, respecting the spiritual nature of 
some of the promises contained in the Jewish Scriptures. I cannot, therefore, regardthe pas~ 
gage which we have just considered, as a mere accommodation (a somewhat forced one too) of 
promises and threatenings addressed to Israel of old, that had respect only to the land of 
Canaan; nor as a mere fanciful application of things ancient, to the Hebrews whom our au- 
thor is addressing. I cannot help believing, at all events, that he regarded the rest spoken of 
in Ps. 95:11 and Gen. 2: 2.as spiritual and heavenly rest. Consequently, an appeal to the ex- 
amples contained in the Old Testament, is more to the point, and more forcible, when thus un- 
derstood, than it would be in any other mode of explaining the views and design of the writer. 

As to the mode of reasoning, in order to establish the positions which the writer has in 
view, it is quite different, indeed, from that to which we now resort, who have the whole of the 
New Testament in our hands, in which “ life and immortality are brought [so fully] to light.” 
We need to take but very little pains, in order to prove that promises of vest ina future world, 
promises respecting a spiritual and heavenly country, are made to Christians. But we must 
remember, while we are labouring to understand the reasoning of Paul in the chapter before us, 
that the Hebrews whom he addressed had no New Testament; for some of it was not yet 
written, and none of it had acquired a general circulation among the Christian churches. This 
is the reason why Paul, in all his epistles, whenever he has occasion to quote Scripture, uni- 
formly quotes the Old Testament only. How could he appeal to the New Testament, which 
was, when he wrote our epistle, only in a forming state, and was not completed until after his 
death? Indeed, it was not embodied in its present form, and generally circulated among the 
Christian churches, until nearly a century after the death of Paul. 

This may suffice to shew why Paul appeals to the Old Testament, and not to the New, 
when he designs to establish any thing from the sacred oracles. Every one, moreover, who 
believes, with Paul, that the “ gospel has brought life and immortality to light,” will of course 
suppose it to be more difficult, to establish promises of rest in a future world from the Old 
Testament than from the New. Hence, he may be less forcibly struck with the argument of 
Paul, in Heb. {V. to prove a promise of future happiness to believers, than he will with many 
an argument which his own mind will supply from the New Testament. And with good rea- 
son. The New Testament does afford arguments far more explicit and convineing than the 
Old; and of course more powerful arguments than those which Paul deduces, in our chapter, 
from the Old. But this is no fault in the writer of our epistle. It is merely a result of the 
circumstances in which he, and those whom he addressed, were placed. He had asserted, in 
writing to them, that a promise of the same nature was proffered to Christians, as was proffer-— 
ed to the ancient Israelites, 4: 1,2. The consequence he deduces from this is, that as unbe- 
lief with respect to this promise occasioned their ruin, so the like unbelief would now produce 
the like consequences. Nothing could be better adapted to his purpose, when writing to the 
Hebrews, than to produce an example of the consequences of unbelief, that was taken from 
their own progenitors, and recorded in their own Scriptures which they acknowledged as the 
word of God. To the New Testament he could not appeal, for it was not then in their hands. 
To the Old Testament Scriptures, then, he chooses (and for the best of reasons) to make the 


VOL. Il. | 14 y 


106 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 1. 





appeal, in establishing the assertion he had made, that a promise of entering into the rest of 
God was still left; that the proffered blessing was announced to Christians in the same man- 

ns as to God’s ancient people, 4: 1,2; and that it would be conferred only on those who re- 
mained firm in their belief. 

on whole argument is, indeed, in some sense, argumentum ad hominem. It is appropriate 
to the time, to the circumstances in which the apostle wrote, and to the people whom he ad- 
dressed. But who can, with any propriety, make it a matter of accusation against the writer, 
that he consulted the good of those whom he addressed, by arguing with them in a manner 
that was most appropriate to their condition? Did not the Saviour constantly do the same? 
And ought we not to follow his example ? 

It is indeed true, that the views of the apostle, in respect to what is revealed in the Old 
Testament with regard to a future state, were plainly very different from those of many com- 
mentators and critics, who represent the Jews, God’s chosen people and favoured with the 
light of revelation, as more profoundly ignorant of the doctrine of immortality, and of future 
rewards and punishments, than any of their heathen neighbours ; a thing as improbable in it- 
self, as it is contrary to the reasoning of the apostle, on which [ have been commenting. Nor 
is it at gll necessary to maintain, with most of the recent commentators, that Paul allegorizes 
the rest of Canaan here, in such a way as to accommodate himself to the spirit of the age in 
which he lived, and the taste of the Jews who were his cotemporaries. So far am I from em- 
bracing this view of the subject, that I am quite persuaded, he has designedly undertaken te 
shew, that the interpretation his cotemporaries put upon the passage which respects exclusion 
from the rest of God, was an erroneous one. Plainly he labours to shew, that rest in the land 
of Canaan could NOT possibly have been meant by the Psalmist. Where then is the allego- 
rizing of the apostle here, of which so much has been said? Whocan say confidently, against 
the reasoning and the decision of Paul, that the rest of which David spake, was not spiritual ? 
I content myself, whatever others may do, with the exegesis of the apostle; anddo fully believe 
that he is in the right. 

If he is correct in his views, then it follows, that the future punishment of the unbelieving 
Israelites is clearly intimated, by the exclusion from spiritual or heavenly rest which is threat- 
ened. This is a necessary inference from the reasoning and conclusions of the apostle. 


CHAP. IV, 


1. DoSndoper, let us beware, lit. let us be afraid of. As fear, 
however, in its literal sense, is not applicable in this case, the ex- 
act shade of meaning is, caveanus, let us beware. 

Kerahecnouevns éxayyehlac, a promise being still left. Kato- 
Asinw, according to both sacred and classic usage, may mean, to 
forsake, desert, neglect ; ‘e. g. in Acts 6: 2. 2 Pet. 2: 15, et al. In 
this sense many critics have understood it, in the passage now in 
question. ‘The sense then would be, ‘ Let us beware, lest by neg- 
lect of the promise made to us, etc.’ But I much prefer the other 
sense of the word, i. e. to leave behind, and (passively) to be left be- 
hind, to remain, to be still extant ; e. g.in Acts 24: 27. Luke 20: 31. 
Mark 12: 19, al. and especially comp. v. 9 below. The meaning 
then is, that the promise, which was implicitly made to believers 
among the ancient people of God, is still in being, and is made to 


“ 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 1. 107 





us, i. e. to Christians. This the next verse so directly asserts, as 
to render the interpretation just given nearly certain. 

*Enayyehias, declaration, annunciation, promise, 1. e. annunci-— 
ation of the reward offered to the believing or faithful. mai 

Mymore .... doxy tug 2 tuaw voreonnévos, lest... . any one 
of you may fail of obiaining it. By sacred and classical usage, 
doxéw is frequently joined with other verbs, without making any 
essential addition to the sense of them; i. e. it is said ‘to be used 
pleonastically ; by which, however, can be meant only, that it is 
incapable of being precisely rendered into our own language, and 
apparently adds nothing to the sense of a phrase. But this is not 
exactly true of doxéw. In many cases, it is plainly designed to 
soften the expression to which it is attached ; e. g. 1 Cor. 7: 40, 
Paul says, doxw 02 xeyo nvevma Deov éyew, I seem to myself to 
possess the Spirit of God; a modest way of asserting the fact, in- 
stead of speaking categorically. In a similar way doxéw is em- 
ployed, in 1 Cor. 14: 37. 10: 12, 0 Oonxev éoravar, he who seems to 
himself to stand; 3: 18. 4:9. In a few cases, it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish what addition is made to the phrase, by the use of doxéw ; 
e.g. Luke 22: 24, rig avray doxet eivou weilor, i. gq. tig ein. So 
Luke 8: 18, 6 doxet éyevv is expressed, in Luke 19: 26, by o éyev. 
1 Cor. 11: 16, ef 0 reg Ooxet qpedovernos etvoe. There can scarce- 
ly be a doubt, however, that in all cases, the Greeks designed to 
give some colouring to a sentence, by employing it. It would 
often seem to be something near to our may, might, can, could, etc. 
when used to soften forms of expression that might have been ca-— 
tegorical. So Theophylact understood it, in our phrase. The 
words doxet tug Vvoreonxevas, he thus explains 5 ‘ rovreoze, unnwes 
voreoron, lest he may come short—and fail to enter into the prom- 
ised rest. The writer uses a mild and gentle address, not saying 
un voregnon, but wy doxn voreonxévor. Theophylact in loc.” 
This, I apprehend, is hitting the exact force of the phrase here ; 
an imperfect view of which is given in the lexicons. 

"E& vuov, in some manuscripts and fathers, 7uov; which 
would better accord with the usual xotyworg of the writer; e. g. 
1: 1. 2: 1, 3. 3: 1, 6, 19, al. But it is not an unusual thing for 
Paul to change or intermingle different persons, in the same pas- 
sage; e. g. Rom. 14: 13. Heb. 10: 24, 25. 

‘Toregew lit. means, to. come afterwards, to come late. In the 


108 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: |, 2. 





secondary sense it means, to fail, to come short of; as he must 
fail of obtaining a thing, who comes too late for it. If the exhorta- 
tion here be regarded as having a special reference to the time 
(ornz00r), when the offers of rest are made, wymote... . voreon- 
REVO ‘may be rendered happily, as in Wahl, dest... . ye come too 
late, i. e. after ojueoov. But I prefer the more simple method ; 
lest... . ye fail of obtaining the promised blessing. 

2. Kai yao éouev evayyehvouevot, for to us also are blessings an- 
nounced, or, we are evangelized, 1. e. the promise of blessings is de- 
clared or made known to us, as well as to them. Biuyyehi>on is us- 
ed classically in the same sense, i. e. to announce joyful tidings, to 
proclaim proffered good. 'The proffered blessing, implied in the 
text, is the rest of which the writer had been speaking, and of 
which he continues to speak. 

"Adn ovn wgednoev 0 hoyos tHS axons, the promise or declara- 
tion which they heard, [or, which was proclaimed], was of no benefit 
to them. “O hoyos rg axons may be equivalent to 6 axovodels 
Aoyos, i. e. the word heard by them; or it may be like the Hebrew 
msi7aw 923, word of annunciation or report, i. e. word announced 
or reported. The sense is not materially changed, whichever of 
these interpretations is adopted. 

Svynenoamevos ... .axovoaor, not being joined with faith in 
them that heard it, or, not being united to faith, i. e. faith not ac- 
 companying it, or associating with it. Svyxenoauevosg is explain- 

ed, by many commentators, as being tropically employed here ; and 
- the metaphor, they allege, is taken from food, which when digested 
unites with the cofporeal system, and becomes aliment to it. So 
here, the word, if duly recéived, would have incorporated itself, so 
to speak, with the internal, spiritual man ; but as it was not receiv- 
ed, it did not so incorporate itself. But this is not so simple and 
easy a mode of explanation, as that given in the above transla ion. 

_ Many manuscripts and editions read ovyxexouuevoug, an 1 some 
OuyxExeoaouevous ;~ which some critics and interpreters prefer. 
But it is difficult, if not impossible, to make any tolerable sense of 
these readings. The common one is much preferable. 

_ Toig exovoeor—equivalent here to the genitive ray axovoar- 
tov. The meaning is, that the Aoyo¢g was not associated with the 
faith of those who heard it. The Hebrews usually designate pos- 
session, by the dative with >; e. g. the Song of songs, pVa>W> WN 


ore 
Es | 
* i ‘ 
he. 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 2, 3. 109 





which is Solomon’s. So, frequently, in Greek ; e. g. of nang his 
father, Pind. Olymp. 1:91. Neither do thy children (oo1 réxve) : 
the light, Eurip. Phoeniss. 1563. Men are one xrjpatwv roig S20 
of the possessions of the gods, Plato. Phaed. See Matt. Gr. Gram. 
§ 392. g. 1. et seq. In all such cases, there is an ellipsis of a pro- 
noun relating to the object possessed, and of the verb of existence, 
which governs the dative when it signifies possession or property ; 
e. g. xryuarwy [a gore] toIg Peors. rm 

“The sense of the whole verse is simply this ; 3 fa promise of rest 
is made to Christians now, as well as to God’s ancient people. But 
they received no advantage from it, because of unbelief;’ the im- 
plication is, poSyFapev, (as he had just said), wy reg doxy x. Tt. A, 
that is, Guard well, then, against unbelief. 

3. Hiosoyouetu yao... .morevoarres, but we who believe do 
enter into the rest, viz. God’s rest. ag, but; for plainly eésseyo- 
pede yoo is put in distinction from the preceding adi” ovx wpedn- 
os, to which the writer subjoins, but (yay) we who do believe, are 
profited by it, etc. It may also be rendered, nearly to the same 
purpose, still, or, yet (yao), we who do believe, etc. provided the 
preceding adi be translated, although. 'The sentiment of the two 
clauses is either this; ‘ Be it that the unbelievers reaped no advan- 
tage from the rest proffered to them, yet we who are believers do 
enter into that rest ;’> which the writer then proceeds to prove: or 
it may be stated in another form, thus, ‘An offer of rest is made 
to us, as well as to them ; but (add) unbelief excluded them from - 
that rest ; we, then (yao), who believe shall be admitted to it.’ 
That is, if our character be the opposite of theirs, then will our lot 
be the opposite also. 

Eiogoyousta, in the present tense, appears to have created 
difficulty in the minds of some critics, who have changed it into 
elochevoouedo (future tense). But how needless this change is, 
every one conversant with the idiom of the Bible may easily judge ; 
in which the present tense is very often used as a wniversal tense, 
embracing time past, present, and future. In Hebrew, it is very 


common to use the present participle, for the same purposes as the 
‘Latins use their future in rus. 





Kadwe stonuev’ *. t. 4. that is, a solemn asseveration that wn- 
believers should not enter into his rest, implies, of course, that be- 
lievers should enter into it. See on 3: 11. 


x 


110 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 3. 





Kaitou cov éoyor.... yevnGévrwr, namely, [rest from] the 
works that were done after the world was founded. Katror is a par- 
ticle, the meaning of which has been much controverted here. 
There is no doubt, that it sometimes has the meaning of although, 
which our English version has here given to it. But I am unable 
to make any sense of the passage, under consideration, if xuirou be 
thus translated. Nor does xaéroc seem originally to mean, although. 
Its principal signification is, et quidem, et sane. So Xenophon (Cy- 
rop. III.), xatroe, etre éxelvous wév YoBeowréoovs mocnoomer x. T. A. 
and truly, if we shall make them somewhat more timid, etc. Thucyd. 
IV. 60, xairor, yyoveae yon x.t. 4. and truly, we ought to know. A- 
ristoph. Plut. 1179, xaizoe tore, Ore eiyo ovdev, and indeed then, 
when they possessed nothing. ‘* Adhibetur,’’ says Hoogeveen, ‘‘ cum 
sequitur aliquid nova attentione dignum;” and again, “ Quartus 
usus est, s? dictum exemplo confirmatur,” (Hoog. Doctrina Part. 
Graec. ed Schiitz. vocab. xa/rov) ; which is the very case in ques- 
tion.. For here the writer gives the example of God’s rest after the 
creation, in order to explain what is the meaning of my rest. I have 
given the sense, by rendering xaizov, namely, which is equivalent in 
many cases to et quidem, et sane. So Devarius (de Partic. Ling. 
Graec.) explains xaizov; and after him Carpzoff, (Comm. in loc. nos- 
trum). The latter says, ‘‘ Devarius evicit, eam (xaizov) simpliciter 
ad exponendam aliquam sententiam poni.” The sense will be sub- 
stantially the same, if xairov be rendered, and truly, and indeed ; 


_ but the other mode of translating is more explicit, and makes the 


connexion more facile. 

Tov goywv, [rest from] 1 the works. That xatanavovy is to be 
understood, before goywy, is ‘clear from vs.4 and 10, where the same 
sentiment is repeated. The ellipsis may be either [xaranavocy] 
TOV EQYWY, OF, [xardnavowy amo] tv éyywr; more probably the 
latter, for ano is supplied after the verb xarénavoe, both in vs. 4 
and 10. “4720, however, is not absolutely necessary here, as noth- 
ing is more common than for the genitive case, without any prepo- 
sition, to mean in respect to, in regard to; e.g. éyyitara avr@ é- 
ut, yévovg, I am very nearly allied to him, 1x REGARD TO descent ; 
amuis aodtvwv naldwy, childless 1N REGARD To males; see Butt- 
mann’s Gram. § 119. 6.1. Matthiae, § 315. 

"Ano narasodng xdouov yevndEevrwy, done, i.e. completed or 
performed, when the world was founded. "Ano xarafodns, at or 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 3—5. 111 





after the foundation, i.e. beginning ; in a sense, like ano wgyns, at 
first, in Matt. 19: 4; and in Luke 13: 25, ag ov means, when. Jo- 


sephus uses xarafodn for beginning ; e.g. Lib. II. 17, Bell. Jud. 


he says, “ This was xarafodn modeuou, the beginning of the war,” 
viz. with the Romans. 

By rendering ano, after, 1 follow the more usual sense of the 
word. The nature of the image I take to be this. ‘lhe foundation 
(xoraodn) of a building is merely its commencement, a state or 
condition preparatory to the completion of the superstructure. So 
here, the xataPodn, founding of the earth, was the act described in 
Gen. 1: 1. The completion of the building (so to speak) followed, 
during the work of the six days which succeeded. These were the 
Zoywv ysvedevtwy Which our author mentions here, and these were 
the works from which God rested, after they were completed. That 
0, joined with nouns designating time, may mean after, since, ev- 
ery lexicon will shew. 

4. The writer now proceeds to cite a passage of Scripture, in 
order to shew that God did enjoy such a rest as he had spoken of. 
Evonue yoo, for [the Scripture] says, or, [the Holy Ghost] says ; 
the usual mode of appealing to the Old ‘Testament. 

Tlov, in a certain place or passage. Chapter and verse are no 
where cited in the New Testament; and very rarely is any partic- 
ular book named, unless indeed it bears the same name as its au- 
thor. An appeal to Scripture, by merely saying zov, shews that 
the writer must have supposed his readers to be familiar with the 
contents of the Jewish Scriptures. The passage cited may be 
found in Gen. 2: 2. . 

Korénavoev 0 G0¢. The rest here spoken of, is of course to 
be considered as described avPownonndws, i. e. In accommodation 
to the capacities of men. It surely does not imply, that God was 
wearied by his work of creation ; but that he simply ceased from it, 
and enjoyed a holy and delightful quiet, in the pleasing contempla- 
tion of the works which had been accomplished. Comp. Gen. 1: 
4, 10, 18, 25, 31. 

5. Such, then, was the rest of God, of which the Scripture 
speaks. To such rest, the apostle says, the writer of the 95th Psalm 
refers. Kal évy rovrm nah, again in this passage also, viz. in the 
passage which he had already quoted from Ps. 95: 11, i. e. the pas- 
sage which he is now going to mention, the Scripture represents 


4 


112 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 5—7,. 





God as saying, my resé, i. e. such rest as I have, or, such as I enjoy. 
In other words, both Gen. 2: 2 and Ps. 95:11, speak of a holy, spir- 
itual reatysince they speak of a rest which God himself enjoys. 

6. “Enei otv anodsinetas .... Ov anetOevav, since then it re- 
mains, that some must enter into that [rest], and [since] they to whom 
the promise was formerly announced, did not enter in, because of un- 
belief ; [it follows that believers only can enter in], comp. v. 3; or, 
[it follows, that a rest remains for believers], comp. v. 9. 

This seems to be a continuation of the subject in vy. 3. There 
the writer says, ‘ Believers enter into the rest of God.’ How is this 
proved ? ‘ Because he has sworn, that wnbelievers shall not enter 
into it ;) which necessarily implies that believers shall enter into it. 
Then after delaying a moment, in order to shew what the nature 
of the rest in question is, viz. that it is God’s rest, i. e. such rest 
as God enjoyed after the work of creation was completed (vs. 3—5), 
the author resumes the consideration of the proposition advanced 
in the first part of v.3, and avers, that, as some must enter into 
God’s rest, (for God could not be supposed to have provided one 
in vain) ; and as unbelievers cannot enter in; so it is necessarily im- 
plied, that believers, and they only, will enjoy the rest in question. 
See the illustration of the reasoning, prefixed to chap. tv. in the 
preceding pages. 

Others construe the verse in this manner ; ‘ Since, then, some 
must enter into his rest, and unbelievers of former days did not en- 
ter in; therefore he defines again (nadev) a particular day, ete ; 
constructing vs. 6 and 7 as one connected sentence. But this 
makes the sentence very much involved, and obscures the design of 
the writer. His object certainly is, to shew that the rest proffered 
in ancient times, in the 95th Psalm, still remains for the people of 
God ; see.vs. 9, 10. But how can this be proved, by merely shew- 
ing that David speaks of ‘a definite time, when he wrote the 95th 
Psalm, in which the offer of rest was then made? On the other 
hand, I understand it to be the particular object of the writer, in v. 
7, seq., to exhibit further proof, that the proffered rest is of a spiritu- 
al nature, and therefore not to be limited by assigning to it a merely 
temporal sense. See the preceding illustration, referred to above. 

7. Llodw tive ogifer jugoav .... xagdiag vuwv, again he spe- 
cifies a particular day, t0-pay, when speaking by David, so long a 
time afterwards; as it is said, “ To-day whilst ye hear his voice, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 7—9. 113 





harden not your hearts.” See above, en chap. 3: 7, 8, particularly 
3:18. The reasoning stands thus; ‘In David’s time, nearly five 
hundred years after unbelievers in the wilderness were threatened 
with exclusion from the promised inheritance, the Psalmist makes 
use of the commination which has been quoted, in order to deter 
those whom he addressed from hardening their hearts as the ancient 
Israelites did, and so losing the rest, as they did, which God had 
proffered to the obedient and believing.’ This rest, then, could not 
be merely the land of Canaan, (as the Jews of Paul’s time under- 
stood it to be), for this both believers and unbelievers, living in the 
time of the Psalmist, already enjoyed. Consequently, the rest spo- 
ken of by the Psalmist was of a spiritual nature, pertaining only to 
believers. All this is plainly implied in verse 

8. Ei yao avrous /noots .... 7uevas, now, if Joshua had giv- 
en them rest, i.e. the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks, 
then he [David] would not have spoken of another time, viz. when 
rest was to be given, or to be obtained. That is, ‘ If the rest of God 
be only the rest of Israel in Canaan, or the quiet possession of the 
promised land, then the Psalmist could not have spoken of it as still 
proffered, in his time, after it had been in fact given to Israel by 
Joshua, nearly five centuries before. The other time, here spoken 
of, is the same which is designated by the word oyjuegov in the 
quotation ; which implies a time different from that, and subsequent 
to that, in which the Israelites obtained the rest of Canaan. 

That ’/yoouvg means Joshua here, there can be no doubt ; for 
the object of the writer is to prove, that Jesus does bestow the rest 
spoken of, viz. that which the ‘/joovg here named did not bestow. 
Katénavoe, caused to rest, exactly as the Hiphil conj. in Hebrew is 
used; e. g. M273 (from maz) in Deut. 12: 10, in the same sense as 
nxatemavoe here. 

9." Aou anolsinerae ...t0v Geov, consequently, there remaineth 
a rest for the people of God, i. e. for believers, see v.3. Here, the 
object of the preceding argument is plainly developed ; so plainly, 
that we are not left at liberty to doubt concerning it. Here is fully 
expressed, what is plainly implied in v. 6, although in an elliptical 
manner, as has been already noticed. Such a manner is not unfre- 
quent with Paul. Comp. Rom. 5: 12 with 5:18, 19. See Intr. § 
22. 3. 

SofPoarvouos, (Heb. naw, jinaw, rest, sabbatism,) holy, reli- 

VOL. Il. 15 


114 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 9—11. 





gious, spiritual rest. SoaBfatvonos is a mere Hebrew word with a 
Greek ending ; and it is here employed as equivalent to xatemav- 
ous, but with special reference to the Heb. expression naw> (from 
mi2w) in Gen. 2: 2, which there describes the rest of God. The 
Heb. jinay is a kind of intensive noun, formed from maw, and 
means, sabbath by way of eminence. Saffartouog, which stands 
for }inay, seems to be a word coined by the writer purposely for 
the occasion, and is very appropriate to his design. 

That believers do enter into the rest of God, i. e. a rest like his, 
is further shewn, by verse 

10. “O yao elochOuv .... 6 03, he who enters into his [God’s] 
rest, he will also cease from his own labours, as God did from his. 
As God ceased from his work on the seventh day, and enjoyed holy 
delight in the contemplation of what he had done, (see on verse 4 
above), so the believer, in a future world, will cease from all his 
toils and sufferings here, and look back with holy delight, on the 
struggles through which he has past, and the labours which he has 
performed, for the sake of the Christian cause. Or, as God enjoys 
a most pure and perfect rest or happiness in heaven ; so the believ- 
er will enjoy a similar happiness there. 

There surely is no more difficulty in calling that rest, which is 
promised to believers, the rest of G'od, than there is in saying, that 
man “was formed in his image ;” that Christians ‘‘are made par- 
takers of the divine nature ;” or that ‘‘ we shall be like him, when 
when we shall see him as he is.”” The rest of God, is rest like that 
which God enjoys. And it deserves to be noticed, that the writer, in 
order to illustrate the natuye of this rest, has chosen the description 
of it, as following the work of creation, in order to make a compari- 
son between it and that rest which believers will have, when all 
their toils'and sufferings are ended. This was well adapted to take 
hold of the minds of those to whom he was writing, and who were 
exposed to many hardships and trials. _ 

Having now shewn that there is‘a promise of spiritual rest to 
believers, implied in what the Jewish Scriptures say, the apostle 
repeats the caution, which lay so near his heart, against unbelief 
in the Saviour and the consequences of it. 

11. Snovdaowmev ovv .... ausedeias, let us earnestly endea- 
vour, then, to enter into that rest, [the rest of God], lest any one 
should perish, in like manner, through unbelief. ’Ev to avrw Un0- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 11, 12. 115 





delypare, after the same example, after the like manner, viz. as they 
(the Israelites) perished. Joy is often used in this way, in an 
intransitive sense. “Aneietas I take to be the genitive (as grani- 
marians say) of means, instrument, etc. 

The awful nature of the commination, that unbelievers should 
not enter into the rest of God, the writer now describes, in order 
to leave a deep impression on the minds of his readers, and to 
guard them more effectually against unbelief and apostasy. 

.@ 12. Zav yoo... . éveoyns, for the declaration of God has an 
active and mighty power, or, is enduring and powerful, i.e. has 
an efficiency that never ceases. The meaning according to the 
latter interpretation is, that the commination, uttered in ancient 
days against unbelievers, (and which had been repeated above by 
the writer), has abated nothing from its force or efficacy, down to 
the present time ; it still lives; unbelievers are still subject to its 
power. In defence of this interpretation, it might be said that Cay 
is applied here to the divine word,%, e. commination, in a manner 
like that in whichit is applied*fo God in the phrase "7 ba, “og 
fav, often used in the Scripturesawhich designates him as eternal, 
unfailing life, in opposition to 
d made of perishable materi- 
erpetual or perennial, may 







immortal, never dying, endowed wi 
idols destitute of a living principle, 
als. It is evident, too, that the sense 
be considered as appropriate to the passége before us. 

But others interpret Cov as meaning, active, a sense which is 
common to this word, and to the Hebrew °m. I understand both 
terms as conveying the idea of active atdynighty energy; which is 
altogether appropriate to the writer’s purpode, whose object it is to 
persuade his hearers, that the commination utteDgd against the un- 
believers of former days and which is still in force, has*a dreadful 
power, at which they ought to shudder. 

Kai rouoreoos ... . diorouov, and sharper tan any two-edged 
sword, i. e. it has a more effective power to inflict wounds, than a 
sword with two edges. The efficacy of divine commination is of- 
ten compared to a sharp sword. KE. g. the Son of man is repre-\ | 
sented by John, as having, when he appeared to him in vision, a 
sharp two-edged sword issuing from his mouth, i. e. his words cut 
as it were like a sharp sword, or his reproof, commination, wound- 
ed deeply, Rev. 1: 16. 2: 12, 16. 19: 15, 21. Comp. also Is. 49: 
2. 11: 4, in which last passage the expression is, with the rod of 


~ 


116 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 12. 








his mouth, and in the parallel orizos, with the breath of his lips 
[with his words] shall he slay the wicked. Language then of re- 
proof, of severe threats or commination, or of condemnation, is by 
the sacred writers called the sword or rod of the mouth. So in our 
verse, the divine commination is represented as terribly efficacious, 
by resorting to the same species of imagery in order to make a 
comparison. 

Kai dvixvovmevos .... mvevpatog. The writer continues the 
description of the efficacy of the divine threatening, by carrying on_ 
still further the description of the effects produced by a sharp 
sword upon the natural body. Pzercing even so as to separate life 
and spirit. Puyn, when used as here, in distinction from TMVEVMO, 
means the animal soul or principle of animal life in man; as mvev- 
uo. in such a case means, the rational or intellectual soul, the im- 
material principle within man. See 1 Thess. 5: 23, where owue 
is added, in order to designate the merely physical or corporeal 
part of the human system. I: the phrase under consideration, 
piercing so as to divide [or separate]*life and spirit, plainly means 
inflicting a wound so deep as shall prove deadly; for that which 
separates the soul from the system endowed with animal life, is of 
course deadly. We may pdraphrase both expressions thus; a 
sharp sword that inflicts deqdly wounds. 

“Adour té xai uvehwv, [piercing so as to divide] joints and 
marrow, i.e. so as to divide the joints or limbs from the body, 
(which was often done in the severer kinds of punishment) ; and 
so as to pierce through the very bone to the marrow, or to separate 
the marrow from the béne, by perforating it; a tremendous image 
of the sharpness gf the sword and the effects it produces. The 
sense is, that the divine commination is of most deadly punitive 
efficacy. 


\ 


Kai xgerenxog ... xagdliac, he also judges [takes cognisance of ] 
the desires and purposes of the heart, i.e. Seog xoutexdg éore 
That xoerixoc, aptus ad judicandum, here applies to God, and not 
to doyos, seems evident. That there is a transition to @e0¢, is 
quite evident from v. 13, where évw@mov avrov, ogdaduois avrou, 
and 1g0¢ ov, one cannot well doubt, are to be applied to God. 
There is, then, a transition somewhere to @s0¢; and the nature of 
the case shews, that the appropriate place for it is at xa? xourex0s. 
In the preceding part of the verse, Aoyog Mov, divine commination, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 12, 13. 117 


a TS eT 


is represented (very forcibly and properly) as punitive. ‘This idea 
is consummated by the phrase which ends with wvedwy; and as 
0g comes in as the subject of discourse, in the sequel, (at least in 
y. 13), I see no place so apposite for its introduction, as at nae 
novtexog. Indeed, there ‘can be no other, for unless it comes in 
here, we must carry Aoyog Geo, as the subject, through the whole 
paragraph ; which does not seem to me to be the design of the 
writer. 

God is here represented as one, who scans the whole of man’s 
internal character, and sits in judgment upon it. Consequently, 
as the writer intimates, no secret act or purposes of unbelief, or 
defection from the Christian cause, will remain unnoticed or un- 
punished. “Ayduunoug and évvove are nearly allied in meaning. 
They are both employed here, merely for the purpose of designating 
universality, i.e.the whole of men’s internal thoughts and purposes. 

13. Koi ovx fore... . avtov, yea, nothing is concealed from 
the view of him [i. e. of God]. Kriowg means, any created thing ; 
literally act of creation, but it follows the Hebrew Ax 73. Ov 
xtlove means, no thing, >> Xb—ovder, or MN 72 Nd. , 

Tlavra .... rergaynduouevar, but all things are naked and ex- 
posed to the view of him, to whom we are accountable. Toaynhifo 
is best explained here, in the sense which the Greek classical wri- 
ters attach to it. It means, (1) To lay bare and bend back the 
neck, so as to expose the throat, in order to its being cut open or 
dissevered. Hence, (2) To expose, to lay open; which is the idea 
of the word in the phrase before us; as it is given in the transla- 
tion above. “Og@aluois, eyes, i.e. sight, view, cognisance ; for it 
is often used in this way. 

Tlodg Ov 7utv 6 doyos, lit. with whom, [before whom, in whose 
power, or at whose disposal], is owr account. 'The sense of account 
Aoyos often has. The common way of rendering hoyos here, is, 
concern, dealing, business. This sense the word will bear; but it 
is less in conformity to the usus loquendi, and less apposite to the 
design of the writer. Chrysostom understands it as I have trans- 
lated it. And so the preceding clause requires it to be rendered ; 
for this speaks of God, (or Adyog, if you please) as xgerexos, i. e. 
aptus ad judicandum ; the clause, now under consideration, repre- 
sents men as actually accountable to him, who is the omniscient 
judge. 


118 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. vy—x. 18. 
RSENS TNT NE a CO ee Ns ee ee eee ed 


The writer now proceeds to the consideration of a subject, at which he had merely hinted 
in chap. 3: 1; where he calls Christ the ag 7tegé@ of the Christian religion. As a/10cTo/0¢g 
(3 jax mbw), pracfectus domo Dei, he had already compared him with Moses, 3: 2— 
6; and then built upon the result of this comparison, the very solemn and affectionate warning 
against unbelief which follows, 3: 7—19. For the encouragement of the Hebrew Christians, 
he had also taken occasion, (after having spoken of unbelievers as excluded from the rest of 
God), to represent the promises still eld out to believers of enjoying that rest. Such was the 
case, under the ancient dispensation, and such he argues, is still the case; “there remains a 
OasSatio.cs for the people of God.” He then, as we have seen, concludes the subject, as us- 
ual, with an exhortation; in which he calls on them not to fail of this rest, 4: 11, nor to incur 
the awful penalty atiached to unbelief, 4: 11—13, 

Having thus completed the comparison of Christ as @7t00tToA0¢ with Moses, and drawn 
from the result of it those practical deductions at which our epistle every where aims; the wri- 
ter now proceeds to compare Christ, as @@ ytever'¢, with the Levitical order of priesthood ; 
which comparison, with its various subordinate parts, and the occasional warnings and com- 
minations that now and then are intermixed, extends to chap. 10:18; which is the end of 
what may be called the doctrinal part of our epistle. 

The mind of the writer plainly appears to have been more intensely engaged, with compar- 
ing Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron and the Levites, than with any other subject in his 
epistle. The comparison, for example, of Christ with the angels, in chap. I., is short; the 
eomparison of him with Moses, in chap. III., still shorter. But the comparison of the Aaroni- 
eal priesthood, as to dignity, duties, offices, and utility, with that of Christ, and of their func- 
tions with his, makes up, in fact, the body of our epistle. It is natural to inquire, why this 
should be so; and the obvious answer, seems to be, ‘ Because the writer regarded this part of 
the Saviour’s office and work, as being, in a comparative sense, by far the most important. As 
a priest, he made atonement for sin, by the sacrifice of himself; in regard to which, no angel, 
no prophet, no teacher, no Aaronical priest, could bear a comparison with him. The most 
prominent part ofall his character, as a Saviour of sinners, is, that he is “the Lamb of God, 
which taketh away the sins of the world.” 

Nothing could be more inappropriate, than the division of chapters made, in some cases, 
in our epistle. Chap. IIL. most plainly ought to be united with Chap. 4: 1—13; thus com- 
prising all that properly belongs to one and the same subject. Chap. IV. ought to begin at 4: 
14, and to terminate with the end of chap. V., where there is a transition from doctrine to ex~ 
hortation. 

In regard to the course and method of argument, pursued through this leading portion of 
our epistle, (viz. from 4: 14 to 10: 18), in which a comparison between the Aaronical priest- 
hood and that of Christ is made, and where all that is connected with the office, and person, 
and duty of priests is also drawn into the comparison ; I have been able to find no satisfactory 
elucidation of it, in any commentator or critic whom I have perused. After attentive study 
of this whole passage, often repeated, it seems to me that the method of the writer is capable 
of being intelligibly stated ; and I shall now venture upon the experiment. 

The apostle introduces the topic, (to which he had adverted in 3: 1, by calling Christ the 
Hozyreven THE Opohoylag ir), by calling Jesus &O 7 LEvee EY AY, wid exhorting the He- 
brews to hold fast the profession (ojodoy tas) which they had made, 4:14. He again hints, 
very briefly, an encouragement to persevere, although subjected to trials and afflictions, be- 
cause of the sympathy that the Saviour would feel for them, as having possessed a nature like 
theirs exposed to trial and suffering, 4: 15,16. Butos he had already dwelt at Jarge on this 
topic (2: 6—18), he merely adverts to it here, and passes on to suggest the points of compari- 
son between the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ. 

(1.) Every priest is appointed in behalf of men, in order that he may superintend and di- 
rect the concerns which men have with God, and may present their oblations and sacrifices be- 
fore him, 5: 1. 

(2.) Every priest, being himself “compassed with infirmity,” is prepared by his own expe- 
rience to sympathize with others in like condition; and because of his own sins and imperfec- 
tions, it becomes his duty to offer expiatory sacrifices for himself as well as for them, 5: 2. 3. 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 119 





(3.) No priest appoints himself to the sacred office; his appointment is by divine direc- 
tion, 5: 4. 

In making a comparison of Christ, as high priest, with the Aaronical priests, in regard to 
the points here stated, the apostle inverts the order in which they are brought forward, and 
shews : 

(1.) That Christ was constituted high priest by divine appointment. This he proves, in 
vs. 5, 6, by quotations. from the second Psalm, and also from Ps. 110: 4. 

(2.) He then passes to the second topic of comparison, viz, the infirmity of the nature 
which Christ our great high priest possessed, and which qualified him, ina peculiar manner, 
to sympathize with the infirmities of his people. He represents Christ as having, during his 
incarnate state, uttered vehement supplications on account of his trials and distresses, and ag 
experiencing, like other men, deliverance from them, 5:7. Even though he was clothed with 
the dignity of the Son of God, he acquired a practical knowledge of what it is to obey in the 
midst of sufferings,5:8. Thus was he fitted weTQLomwadety Tots ayvoovol ; and having thus 
obeyed and suffered, in consequence thereof he was exalted to glory (TéeAevonFeic), where, as 
kingly high priest, after the order of Melchisedek, he isan all-sufficient Saviour to those who 
believe and obey him, 5:9, 10. fr 

As one of the proofs that Christ was exalted to be an all-sufficient Saviour, the writer has 
again, v. 10, produced the passage, which asserts him to be a priest forever after the order of 
Melchisedek, i. e. a kingly priest whose office is not of limited extent or temporary duration, 
But having thus introduced atopic attended with difficulty, and demanding an enlightened 
knowledge of the Scriptures and of the nature of Christianity in order to be rightly and fully 
comprehended, the apostle stops short in the prosecution of his subject, in order to admonish 
those whom he was addressing, with regard to the little progress which they had made, in 
such knowledge as would render them adequate fully to comprehend the discussion concerning 
the topic in question, in which he was about to engage. His reproof for their comparative ig- 
norance, he pursues through 5: 11—14. In 6: 1—8, he warns them against the awful danger, 
which would result from stopping short or turning back in their course, in order that he might 
thus excite them to more diligence and exertion respecting religious improvement. Notwith- 
atanding the seeming severity of his remarks in regard to this topic, he assures them that he 
has an affectionate confidence in their good estate, 6: 9; and this, because God will have re- 
gard to the benevolent character which they had before exhibited, 6:10. He then exhorts 
them to press forward in their Christian course, 6: 11; and assures them, that the promise and 
oath of God are pledged, that believers who persevere shall attain to salvation, 6: 13—19, 

After this digression, (if that may be called digression which is so directly concerned 
with the main object of the writer), he proceeds to descant upon the topic of Christ’s priest- 
hood, as instituted by God and compared with that of Melchisedek, which had been brought 
to view by the text of Scripture cited, in 5: 6, 10. 

In order to do this so as to make a strong impression, he begins by giving an account of 
the dignity of Melchisedek. He was king of Salem, and priest of the most high God ; his su- 
periority was acknowledged by Abraham, when he paid him a tithe of the spoils which he had 
taken, 7: 1,2. The same Melchisedek was not descended from priests, (and therefore his of- 
fice did not fall to him by the mere right of succession, but was the special appointment of 
God); he has no genealogy assigned him in the sacred writings, nor any limited term mention- 
ed in which his priesthood began or expired; like Christ’s priesthood, his is unlimited, 7: 3. 
Abraham himself, exalted as this patriarch was, acknowledged the superiority of Melchise- 
dek ; and the Levitical priests descended from him did as it were acknowledge the same, by 
their progenitor who paid this homage, and to whom they must be counted inferior, 7: 4—7. 
Besides, the Levitical priests, who receive tithes, hold their office only for a limited duration; 
while Melchisedek is a priest for an unlimited time, 7:8. Indeed, (if one may venture so to ex- 
press himself), the Levites themselves paid tithes to Melchisedek, through Abraham their pro- 
genitor, 7: 9, 10. 

Thus much for the superiority of Melchisedek over the Levitical priests. The conclusion, 
in this case, is left to be supplied by the reader’s mind, after the manner in which Paul often 
writes. The reasoning is thus. ‘Christ isa priest after the order of Melchisedek; Melchise- 
dek is superior to the Aaronical priests ; consequently, Christ as a prieat is superior to them.’ 


120 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 








The writer next proceeds to another topic of great importance, and which very naturally 
connected itself with the consideration of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with that of Mel- 
chisedek. If, says he, the Levitical priesthood was adequate for all the purposes of atone- 
ment, and for the purification of the consciences of sinners, then what necessity that the ap- 
pointment of another priest should be made, as is predicted in Ps. 110: 4? 7:11. Now anoth- 
er order of priesthood necessarily demands a change of former institutions, 7: 12; and that 
another order is necessary, follows from the fact, that Christ (the priest after the new order) 
was to spring from the tribe of Judah, 7: 13. Still more evident must it be, that the order 
would be different, because the new priestly office is to be perpetual, 7: 15—17. Consequently, 
the old order of things gives place to a new and better one, 7: 18, 19. 

Besides, the new priest is appointed by the solemnity of an oath, while the Aaronical 
priests were not, 7: 21; consequently, we must suppose the new order of things to be superior, 
7:22. This superiority appears specially in the fact, that the priesthood of Christ is perpetu- 
al, while that. of the Levites was constantly changing by succession, 7: 23,24. Christ there- 
fore is an adequate and neber- failing helper, to all who come unto God through him, 7: 25. 

It is thus, that the apostle illust 

_ ject introduced in 5: 6,10, by a quotat 









es, enlarges, and confirms his views respecting the sub- 
rom Ps. 110: 4, respecting the priesthood of Christ. 
The amount of the argument is, that by oath of God Christ was appointed to his priest- 
hood, while the Aaronical priests were appointed without such a solemnity; that the priest- 
hood itself, being of the order of Melchisedek, i. e. not by descent, not limited, not temporary, 
and of higher dignity than that of Aaron, Christ must be regarded as altogether superior to 
the order of Jewish priests. The inference of course is, that the Hebrews ought not to for- 
sake him who was a superior priest, in order to attach themselves to those who were inferior 
ones. - 

Having thus completed what he had to say, respecting the comparison of Christ and Mel- 
chisedek as priests, (all of which is employed to the advantage of the cause which he is advo- 
cating); the writer resumes the topic which he had begun in 5: 7, 8, viz. that of Christ’s sympa- 
thy with those “who are compassed with infirmity.” He had already suggested there, that 
Christ possessed all the common sympathies and innocent infirmities of our nature, in common 
with other priests. But not to leave it uncertain, whether in all respects Jesus was “ com- 
passed with such infirmities” as the Jewish priests, he now proceeds to point out one impor- 
tant difference, viz. that the high priest of the new dispensation is altogether superior to the 
priests of the old, in regard to the moral purity aud perfection of his character. He is holy, 
and altogether sinless, 7 : 26; and therefore needs not, like them, to offer any sacrifice on his 
own account, 7:27; for he has no such infirmity as renders this at all necessary, since he is 
priest in a state of perfection and glorious exaltation, 7: 28. 

Having thus shewn the superiority of Christ over the Levitical priests, in respect to the 
second particular, viz. the qualifications for sympathizing with erring men, the writer next 
proceeds to the most important topic of all, viz, the office of Christ, as a priest, in directing the 
concerns of men with God, and in presenting a propitiatory sacrifice for them. 

He begins by averring, that the principal thing (zeycAuor), in respect to the matters 
which he is discussing, is the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, 8: 1,2, He then 

re-introduces the topic, which he had-before stated in 5: 1. Taking for granted the truth of 
the sentiment there stated, he now draws the inference from it, that Christ (being a priest) 
must also have an offering to present; 8: 1—3. But if Christ were on earth he could not be a 
priest ; fer priests, whose office it is to perform duty in the earthly sanctuary, are already con- 
stituted by divine appointment, 8:4; and these perform their office in a temple that is merely 
a copy or resemblance of the heavenly one,8:5, Christ’s ministry is as much superior to 
theirs, as the new covenant is to the old one, 8:6; and the Scripture itself predicts, that the 
old covenant should be abolished, and the new one introduced in its stead, 8: 7—13. Ofcourse 
the new covenant must be superior; and Christ, who ministers in the heavenly temple, must 
be superior to those who serve merely in the earthly one, 

Next, the writer proceeds to consider the manner and design of the sacerdotal service, 
and the ends which could be accomplished by it. > 

The earthly temple consisted of various apartments, and contained a variety of utensils, 
9:1—5. The priests performed daily service in the outer temple, 9: 6; while the high priest 


rv 


_ VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 121 
entered the inner one, (where God dwelt), only once in each year, when he presented the blood 
of the great atoning sacrifice, 9:7. A permission to enter only so seldom into the inner sanc- 
tuary, shewed that free access to God at all times and places was not yet disclosed, while the 
first dispensation lasted, 9:8. Indeed, these rites, with all their appurtenances, were merely 
a symbol of what was to be effected under the gospel, 9: 9, 10. ; 

Christ, on the other hand, the heavenly high priest, entered the eternal sanctuary with 
his own blood, procuring everlasting redemption for sinners, 9: 11,12. The blood of bulls and 
goats, presented by the Jewish high priest, effected nothing more than ceremonial, external 
purification, 9: 13; while the blood of Christ purifies the conscience and renders the worship- 
per truly acceptable to God, 9: 14. 

Such is the efficacy of the propitiatory sacrifice made by the death of Christ, that it ex- 
tends back to the sins of former ages ; so that all, who are called of God to partake of the 
blessings of the gospel, attain, through his death, toa heavenly inheritance, 9: 15. 

The mention of Christ’s death here, in connexion with the assurance effected by it of a 
heavenly inheritance for believers, affords occasion to the writer to compare the new d1a91/zn 
ratified by the death of Christ, with the 0ra97 za: which are ratified by the death of testators, 
The Greek word 1091/47 not only answers to Aa; but also means such an arrangement 
as is made by a man’s last will or testament, and is employed, not unfrequently, in this latter 
sense. Hence our author, after asserting (9: 15) that Christ’s death made, sure an inheritance 
to believers, falls very naturally upon comparing the dra91/y thus ratified by the death of Je- 
sus, with the 01a97xar ratified by the death of their respective testators. Such, says he, is 
the custom among men in regard to testaments, that the death of the testators must supervene, 
in order to give them full effect and confirmation, 9: 16,17. Eventhe first drady/xn (m “2), 
although it could not be so appropriately called a testament, was sanctioned in a manner not un- 
like that in which the new Oca@9 #1 is sanctioned ; for blood, (the emblem of death), was ap- 
plied to almost every thing which pertained to the ancient covenant or Stadi/zn, in order eith- 
er to ratify or to consecrate it, 9: 18—22, Now, since this was so extensively done, in regard 
to things here, which are mere resemblances or types of heavenly things, these heavenly things 
themselves, being of a nature so much more exalted, must be consecrated by a corresponding 
sacrifice, of a higher nature than any offered in the earthly temple, 9:23. For it is in the 
heavenly temple, that Christ discharges the functions of his priestly office, 9: 24; yet not, like 
the Jewish priests, repeating expiatory offerings frequently, but once for all performing this 
sacred rite, 9:25, 26. As men die but once, and Christ, in his human nature and by dying in 
it, made an expiatory offering; so he could make this but once ; therefore, when he shall make 
his second appearance, it will not be to repeat his sin-offering, but for the deliverance of all 
who wait for his coming, 9: 27, 28. 

Having thus compared various particulars, which have respect to the priesthood of the de- 
scendants of Aaron, to those which relate to the priesthood of Jesus; the writer comes, last 
of all, to treat more fully of the inefficacy of the Jewish sacrifices, and of the perfect and ever- 
lasting efficacy of that propitiatory offering, which was made by the high priest of the heav- 
enly sanctuary. He had, indeed, already hinted at this, several times, in the preceding parts of 
his epistle, e.g. 7: 11,19. 8:7,13. 9: 8—10. 9: 13, 14; but as it was the most important topic 
of all, and the most difficult to be urged on the minds of Jews, he reserved it until the last, in 
order that he might give it a more ample discussion. 

He begins by declaring, that the rites of the law were designed to be typical, and that the 
yearly sacrifices which were offered under it, never could quiet and purify the consciences of 
men, 10:1; otherwise, the offerings need not have been continually repeated, 10:2. The re- 
membrance of sin is constantly renewed by them, 10:3. Indeed, it is plainly impossible that 
the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, i. e. remove the penalty of it, or Jessen its 
power, 10:4. In accordance with this sentiment, the Scripture (Ps. XL.) represents the Sa- 
viour, when entering upon his work, as saying, that sacrifices and offerings are of no value in 
the sight of God, 10: 5,6. The Messiah represents himself as doing what God requires, viz. 
what God requires in order that he may exercise his clemency, 10:7. Of course, (so our au- 
thor reasons), sacrifices and offerings are rejected, in respect to making real propitiation, while 
the “obedience of Christ unto death” is accepted instead of them, 10:8, 9. This sacrifice is 

truly efficacious for moral purposes, 10: 10. The Jewish priests repeated continually their sac- 


VOL. I. 16 a 


122 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 


e 








fifices; but the offering of Christ, once made, is of everlasting efficacy, 10: 11,12. Having 
once made this, he may expect the cause on account of which it was made to be victorious, 
10: 13; for one offering, once made by Jesus, is al] sufficient; its effects are never to cease, 
10:14. To such an efficacy of Christ’s offering, the Holy Spirit has testified in the Scriptures, 
by declaring, that under the new covenant sin should be forgiven, and iniquity no more re- 
membered, 10: 15,16. Consequently, offering for sin needs not to be repeated, after pardon is 
actually obtained, 10: 17, 18. : 

With this consideration, the author closes the comparison of Jesus, as a priest, with the 
Jewish priests under the Levitical dispensation. This comparison in all its parts, however, 
occupies the greater portion of his epistle, viz. from 4: 14 to 10: 18 He then proceeds to ex- 
hortations, warnings, and various arguments drawn from different sources, in order to urge 
upon his Hebrew brethren the importance of persevering in the Christian faith. 

The writer of our epistle has sometimes been charged with being discursive, and with hav- 
ing very little connexion in the series of his reasoning. If the charge of discursiveness means, 
that he often stops short in his course of argument, in order to warn those whom he was ad- 
dressing against danger, and to expostulate with them, this is certainly true, in a remarkable 
degree. But this is the ultimate and highest end, which the writer himself had in view. If 
he has practised digression, it is digression exceedingly to his purpose, and altogether conso- 
nant with the unconstrained nature of epistolary address. 

In respect to an alleged want of connexion in the author’s reasoning, the analysis already 
presented is the best answer which I can giveto this charge. The method of reasoning seems, in- 
deed, to have been too commonly overlooked, or to have been only partially discerned, in the com- 
mentaries to which I have had access; but I cannot help thinking that there is a connexion, 
which can be clearly and satisfactorily traced, throughout the whole. If I have succeeded in 
attempting to trace it, then the student will be aided in forming his views, with respect to the 
relation that one part of our epistle bears to another, in that portion of it which has now been 
analysed. 

If the question be asked, why the apostle should resort to comparisons of this nature, in 
order to illustrate the office of Christ, or rather, the virtue and efficacy of his mediation and re- 
demption; the answer plainly is, ‘ A regard to the condition and feelings of those whom he ad- 
dressed, led him to do so.” The Jews of that day, regarded the office of high priest as the 
most honorable of all offices then sustained. The authority and dignity of this office were very 
great, in earlier times, under the Jewish kings. But after the captivity, the offices of king and 
high-priest were frequently united in the same person. This of course would tend to elevate 
the esteem, in which the Jews held the rank of high priest. When the Romans reduced Judea 
to a tributary province, the civil power was transferred to the Procurator sent there by them; 
but the supreme ecclesiastical power still remained in the hands of the high-priest, who was 
supreme judge of the land; and president of the Sanhedrim. The high priest was, moreover, 
the only person who could enter th® most holy place, on the great day of national expiation, 
and make atonement for the people. On all these accounts, the Jews cherished the greatest 

. degree of reverence for this office. They looked upon it as their glory, and expected from the 
functions of it, pardon for sin and acceptance with God. How difficult it was to wean them 
from these Views, even those of them who had embraced Christianity, the Acts of the Apostles, 
and almost all the apostolic Epistles, abundantly testify. But this must necessarily be done, 
however difficult, if Christianity was to be fully admitted and practised by them. 

There can be no doubt, that the unbelieving Jews would urge with all their power, upon 
the new converts to Christianity, the views and feelings which the latter had once possessed in 
common with them, with regard to this subject. It entered into the very essence of Judaism, 
that such views and feelings should be cherished; and this was a trait which distinguished 
the Jews in a peculiar manner from other nations. The apostle, in addressing the Hebrew 
Christians, had to contend with such arguments as the adversaries of Christianity among the 
Jews would bring, in order to shake the constancy of the new converts. The splendour and 
the supposed importance of the Jewish high-priesthood, however, was, after all, a thing which 
Jewish Christians must be brought to renounce. How could they, educated as they had been, 
do this: To satisfy their minds on this subject, the apostle presents a comparison of this of- 
fice in all its various respects, with the office of high priest as sustained by Christ ; and he 


* D ees. 


Pr 


VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 123 





shews that instead of giving up any thing, by embracing the new religion, they would only 
exchange a high priest who was imperfect, who offered sacrifices that effected a purification 
only external and of mere temporary efficacy, who officiated in a temple made with hands—all 
the mere type or symbol of something that was of a spiritual and more exalted nature—all 
this they would exchange, by embracing and adhering to the Christian religion, for a high 
priest without sin, whose sacrifice “ purged the conscience from dead works,” and had an “ ev- 
erlasting efficacy ;’ which was offered too in atemple not made with hands, of which the Jew- 
ish temple with all its splendour and solemn pomp was only a mere image. Could any thing, 
now, be better adapted to fortify the minds of those to whom he wrote in their Christian pro- 
fession, and to wean them from their old prejudices? And is it not allowable, that an apos- 
tle should reason in a manner best adapted to the condition and feelings of those whom he ad- 
dresses ? 

I am aware that much has been said, by recent commentators, on arguing zat (a 9Qu7roy, 
er in a way of accommodation, in our epistle; and that all the comparisons made in it, be- 
tween things and persons, under the law and under the gospel, have been ranked with this 
class of reasoning or argument. For those, who do not acknowledge the divine origin of the 
Jewish religion, nor that any of its rites, sacrifices, or persons were symbolical of any thing 
belonging to Christianity, such a mode of explanation may be necessary. But for those who 
believe, with the writer of our epistle, that the Jewish religion was of God, and that the an- 
cient Scriptures have revealed a Messiah, very little, if any, of arguing merely in the way of ac- 
commodation, in our epistle, needs to be admitted. Does not the 110th Psalm eall Christ @ 
high priest? And did not the Jews of Paul's day admit, (as well as Paul himself), that this 
Psalm had respect to the Messiah? Undoubtedly they did. Where then isthe accommodation 
of the writer to the mere prejudices of those whom he addressed, when it is evident that both 
he and they entertained an opinion in common with regard to the exegesis of the 110th Psalm? Of 
sourse, both admitted that Christ was to be a high priest. But how? Why? Not of the or- 
dinary kind; for he did not descend from Aaron. Not to make expiation which should mere- 
ly pertain to external purification ; but to make an expiation which should purge “the con- 
science from dead works,” and which should procure the pardon of sin with God, and “ bring 
in everlasting redemption for his people.” 

It is not, then, merely to satisfy the Jew that he need relinquish nothing of his regard for 
the excellence and importance of the office of high priest by embracing Christianity, and that 
he has exchanged a less splendid office of priest under Judaism, for a more splendid one under 
Christianity, that Paul dwells so long on the virtues and dignity of Christ’s office as high priest. 
No doubt he had this object in his eye, as I have already stated, when he entered upon the con- 
sideration of this topic. But why does he dwell on it so mach longer, than he does on the 
comparison of Christ with Moses? Not because the Jews exalted the high priest, above Mo- 
ses; for this surely they did not. [t was because Christ, in the office of high priest, perform- 
ed that peculiar duty, which of all others made him what he was, the SAVIOUR of sinners, 
the REDEEMER of lost men ; because, as priest, he offered an expiatory sacrifice, which 
takes away the sins of the world, and makes him the propitiation for their offences. 1 am en- 
tirely unable to explain the copiousness of our epistle on this point, if this be not the reason of 
it. And ifthis be admitted, then there is reason enough, why the apostle should dwell so 
long upon it. 

I know of no part of the Scriptures, which explains the nature and object of the Jewish 
ritual, in a manner go spiritual, so satisfactory, so clear, so worthily of God, and so profitably 
to us, as chaps. V—X of the epistle to the Hebrews. As a key to the Old Testament, these 
chapters deserve the most attentive and thorough study of all who wish to understand the Bi- 
ble. As a statement and vindication of the great work of Christ, and the atonement which he 
made by his blood for sin, they stand in the very first rank of all the Scriptural writings. As 
adapted to the wants and condition of those whom the apostle addressed, they are a consum~ 
mate specimen of skilful argument, and of powerful persuasion and remonstrance. 


=~ 


124 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 14, 15. 





14. “Eyovreg obv woyregéa wéyuv, moreover, since we have a 
great high priest. Sothe words, literally construed, seem to mean. 
But it is doubtful whether this translation conveys the exact shade 
of meaning, which should be attached to the original. In the 
apostle’s day, egyvegevs no longer designated merely one man, the 
single head of the whole priesthood, but it was applied also to his 
deputy (730); to those who had quitted the office of the high 
priesthood (exauctorati) ; and also to the priests, at the head of 
each of the twenty four classes of the priesthood. The word egyue- 
géu¢ of itself, then, without any adjunct, did not, in the time of 
Paul, designate the high priest by way of eminence, who was the 
only person that could enter the most holy place, and make atone- 
ment for sin. Hence the apostle says, not simply aoyeegevs, but 
woyiegeds méyag; which designates a specific individual. This 
corresponds exactly to the idea conveyed by the Hebrew b77a FID, 
which was applied only to him who was actually Pontifex “Maxi- 
mus. 

Atehnivbora rove ovgurors, passed through the heavens. 
Wahl and others, passed into the heavens ; interpreting duehnduddra 
as equivalent to ecozgyomevor, entered into. But they seem to me 
plainly to have mistaken the force of the writer’s expression here. 
According to the Hebrew idiom, God dwells above the visible firm- 
ament, D°72Y, ovgavot. Through this Jesus passed, when he as- 
cended to take his “ seat at the right hand of the majesty on high, 
1:3.” There is a plain allusion, too, to the high priest of the 
Jews, who, once in a year, went into the most holy place, passing 
through the vail, which sqreened the residence of divine majesty 
from the view of men, 9: 7,8. So, our great high priest has passed 
through the heavens, into the immediate presence of God, into the 
“holy of holies” in the upper world. This explanation, which 
Bengel and Owen defend, I must think to be the right one; al- 
though Ernesti ventures to call it stulta animadversio. 

‘{noovr tov vioy tov Gsov is added, to shew whom he means 
by aoyeevea. Koatausv 1799 demu let us firmly hold [tena- 
ciously adhere to] the religion which we have professed, viz. Chris- 
tianity. Agazéw takes either the accusative or genitive after it. 

To encourage them to follow this advice, the writer sets before 
them the assistance which they may expect, in their efforts so to do. 

15, Ov yao .... codeveiace rjuov, for we have not a high 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 15. 125 





priest, who is incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses. The 
form of the expression is negative ; a mode of expression frequent- 
ly employed by the sacred writers. When the negative form is 
thus employed, it is of the same meaning as an affirmative asser- 
tion would be, i. e. it is the same in this case, as if the author had 
said ‘* We have a high priest, who will sympathize with our weak- 


nesses.”” So, ‘‘ John confessed, and denied not, but confessed,. 


t 


etc. John 1: 20.” In most cases, however, there is some intensi- 
ty of coloring designed to be given, when this negative form of ex- 
pression is chosen, in preference to simple affirmation. 

Tlenevoaougvoy, see on 2: 18. Kara navta, in all respects ; 
not to be metaphysically or mathematically taken. The meaning 
is, that he, like us, was subjected to trial by suffering on account 
of the truth; he, like us, was solicited to sin, e. g. when Satan 
tempted him, and often when the Scribes and Pharisees tempted 
him. 

Ko® opocornre, scil. zur, i. e. who was tempted like us; ma- 
oaninoiwe yuo, says Theophylact ; ouolws yjuiy, Origen. This 
surely does not imply, that temptations had, in all respects, the 
same influence upon him as upon us; but only, that he was expos- 
ed to be attacked by them, in like manner as we are. He _posses- 
sed a nature truly human, 2: 14, 17; he was therefore susceptible 
of being excited by the power of temptations, although he never 
yielded to them. So the writer ; 

Xwois auaotiac, without sin; i. e. although assailed by temp- 
tations of every kind, he never yielded, in any case, to their influ- 
ence. He remained sinless. But why is this here asserted ? 
Principally, I apprehend, to guard against any mistake, in respect 
to what the writer had just said. To shew the Hebrews,. that they 
might depend on the sympathy and compassion of their high priest 
(comp. 2: 17, 18) to help them, in all the trials and difficulties to 
which an unshaken adherence to Christianity would subject them, 
he declares that Jesus was himself subject to the like trials, in all 
respects. But when he had so said, as if fearing they might draw 
the conclusion, that in some cases, at least, he was (like others) 
overcome by them, the author immediately adds, yoors auaoriac. 
It may be, that the expression implies an exhortation thus, viz, ‘Je- 
sus when tried did not sin; Christian brethren, follow his example.” 
I prefer, however, the former explanation. 


= 


* 


126 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 16—5: 1. 








16. Let us, then, approach the throne of grace wera nagonotas, 
with freedom of speech; i. e. since we have such a sympathizing, 
compassionate high priest, to offer our supplications to God and to 
help us, let us go to God with confidence that we shall receive the 
aid that we need. “ Ask and ye shall receive.” 7p Goovm rs 


yeoutos has reference to the mercy seat, in the temple, on which 
_ God is represented as sitting enthroned. There he heard the sup- 


plications of his people, presented by the high priest; there he ac- 
cepted their oblations ; and from thence he dispensed to them the 
blessings which they needed. Christians may now approach the 
mercy seat in heaven, by their high priest, and may come peta 
maponoias, with confidence. 

“Iva haSopev zieov, that we may obtain mercy, i. e. that com- 
passion may be exercised towards Christians, in their afflictions 
and trials. Kai yaouy evommev .... Bondecav, and find favour in 
respect to timely assistance. Xagwy does not differ much, here, 
from édsov, except that it is a word of a more generic nature. The 
sentiment is, be helped opportunely ; i. e. now, when we are perse- 
cuted and sorely pressed by trials, we may obtain that aid which 
such seasons require. This isexactly the idea conveyed by evxou- 
cov Bondecav, auxilium opportunum. Literally the Greek runs 
thus, And find grace, with respect to opportune assistance. 


CHAP. V. 


1. LE avPownwy houBavomevos, selected, taken from men. So 
ho@e, in Acts 15:14. Ina similar sense, mp> is often used in 
Hebrew ; and dauavw, not unfrequently, in the classics. The 
meaning is, that priests, appointed according to the usages of the 
Levitical law, are appointed to have the oversight of the religious 
concerns of the people, specially to make their oblations and sacri- 
fices. 

‘Tnio avdounwy xoPioracar ta n00¢ Tov Yor, is constituted 
for the benefit of men, in relation to their concerns with God. 
Kaicraras is often employed to designate an appointment to of- 
fice of any kind; e. g. Matt. 24: 45. Luke 12: 14. et al. So, also, 
it is used by heathen writers. “Yugo, for the benefit of, for the 
sake of, on account of ; a frequent use of the word. Zu mos tov 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 1, 2. $27 


—— ——————— 


zor, for xara ta %. t. A, there being an ellipsis of the preposition, 
which is very common in such cases. The idea is, ‘In respect to 
their religious concerns ; in regard to business which they have to 
transact with God ;’ particularly, 

“Iva mooogéon .... auagriar, that he may offer [to God] both 
oblations and sacrifices for sin. Amoa 1 take here to mean, the 
various kinds of thank-offerings etc., that were to be presented to 
God, agreeably to the ritual established by Moses; and @voias, 
the various sin and trespass-offerings, that were made with slain 
beasts. To the act of slaying Pvolag refers, as it is derived from 
vw to kill. In all these, and the like concerns, the high priest 
was to act the part of an internuntius, a mediator, between God 
and men; i. e. he was to aid men in regard to their spiritual or re- 
ligious concerns. It should be remarked, however, that dwoe 
sometimes includes the idea of sacrifices, e. g. 8: 4, comp. 8: 3. 
Yet where both dmou and volta are employed, they are not to be 
regarded as synonymes. Both are employed to designate the uni- 
versality of the idea intended, i. e. (in this case) offerings of every 
kind. 

2. Merovonadeiv dvvauevos, one who can crercise gentleness or 
moderation. 'This classic or philosophic use of the word uergco- 
nude may be briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a 
man should be aa7¢, i.e. not subject to passions, such as anger, 
fear, hope, joy etc. ‘The Platonists, on the other hand, averred, 
that a wise man should be weroromaOns, moderate in his affections, 
and not audng. The leading sense, then, of the word werovona- 
Bev is, to be moderate in our feelings or passions. In our text, the 
connexion shews us, that this moderation or gentleness was to be 
exercised by the high priest rei¢ ayvoovoe zai mAavopevors, toward 
those who were ignorant and erring. In other words, he was to be 
lenient towards offenders, to treat them with gentleness and mod- 
eration, with kindness and not with severity. The comparison of 
Christ as a priest, in respect to this point, is presented in 5: 7—9 
and 7: 26—28. 

* Ayvoovse xai mhavwmevorg some have construed as a Hendia- 
dys, and rendered the phrase thus ; those who ignorantly offend, or, 
who offend through ignorance. But surely the indulgence of the 
high priest on earth was not limited merely to this class of offen- 
ders, much less is the clemency of our great high priest in the 








128 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 2—5. 





heavens so limited. “Ayvoéw is repeatedly used by the Seventy, 
as a translation of the Hebrew MAW, 330, OWN, which signify, to 
err, lo commit sin, to render one’s self guilty. So Sirac. 5: 18, in 
a great or little thing wy ayvoet, sin not. So Polyb. V. 11. 5, 20A- 
Eusiv toIg ayvonoaoe, to make war on those who have been faulty. 
But if any should think it preferable, in our verse, to retain the 
common sense of ignorance, then plainly it must be construed of 
voluntary criminal ignorance ; and in such a case, mAaympevorg de- 
signates those who commit offences in consequence of such igno- 
rance. But I prefer the other rendering, which makes ayvoovuce 
“ai nhavomevorg to be an accumulation of descriptive words, in or- 
der to designate offenders of various kinds. This comports better 
too with fact, either in relation to the office of the Levitical- priest 
in the earthly sanctuary, or to that of Jesus in the heavenly one. 

“Ensi noi... . aodévevay, since he himself is compassed with in- 
Jjirmity, i.e. he is himself an offender, or, he is exposed by his 
weaknesses to commit the like sins with those, whose offerings he is 
called to present to God. JTegizevras, in the passive, is construed 
with an accusative after it: “4od¢vera means here, moral infirmi- 
ty or weakness ; not natural frailty of the physical system. The 
meaning is, that the high priest, ‘‘ haud ignarus mali, miseris suc- 
eurrere discit.” 

3. Kal dca ravryy ... aucotemy, and on this account, [viz. be- 
cause he is himself a sinner], he must present sin offerings, as well 
for himself as for the people. IIooagegeiy, i. €. neoogogay vel Gu- 
olav, Hebrew may maort. IIgocgévom is the common word em- 
ployed to denote the presentation of an offering, gift, or sacrifice to 
God, and corresponds to the Hebrew 733, or rather 7>y7 in Hiph- 
il. See the .superiority of Christ represented, in respect to the 
point here suggested, in 7: 26——28. 

4. Kal ovx éaurw hth e * Aaowy, moreover, no one can assume 
the honour [of the high pr ‘iesthood] to himself, but heis appointed by 
God, even as Aaron was. Kodovuevos, i. e. d&7 xahovpmevos eivac. 

5. Ovrw nul... . aoyregéa, accordingly, Christ did not claim 
Jor himself the honour of being high priest, or, Christ did not exalt 
himself to the honour of being high priest. Aoéasev, to exalt, to 
claim honour for, John 8: 54. Rom. 11: 13. 

AAK O hadijoas .. . yeyevinna oe, but he who said to him, 
Thou art my son, this ee y have I begotten thee, [2d0Eacev autor. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 5, 6. 129 





exalted him.| So the ellipsis must be supplied. The meaning is, 
exalted him to the office of high priest; i. e. the Father bestowed 
this honour upon the Son, see on 1: 53 or in other words, he 
was divinely i ad * 

6. Kwdws nai év Eréom déyeu, so, Alco: he declares in another 
passage [of Scripture]. The declaration is, that the Father con- 
stituted the Son a priest; for the writer had affirmed, in v. 4, that 
a priest must be divinely constituted. The quotation is from Ps. 
110: 4; a Psalm which, asI have before remarked, not only the 
apostle and most Christian commentators, but even the Jewish Rab- 
bies in general agree, has relation to the Messiah. 

Zu isosvg .... Medyvosdex, thou art a priest forever, after the 
order of Melchisedek. “/sgsvg designates here a priest generically 
considered. The Psalmist, and after him the apostle, does not say, 
woytegevs, because the sequel shews that the personage referred to 
must be of the highest order of priests, viz. of the same order with 
that of Melchisedek. 

Kare tiv rake, Hebrew St OS) lee: ny a7 > by, for is par- 
agogic here. This Hebrew phrase commonly means, on account 
of, for the sake of; but such a meaning would be wholly inappo- 
site in Ps. 110: 4. ‘The sense of it, as there employed, plainly is 
similar to that of 7273 in Deut. 15: 9.19: 4. 1 K. 9: 15, viz, man- 
ner, order, arrangement, kind. So the classic sense of raécc is, 
order, arrangement, place, office, rank. The simple meaning is, 
‘Thou art a priest, of an order or rank like that of Melchisedek.’ 

When in v. 10, the writer repeats the quotation here made, he 
uses agyeegevs, instead of isgsvg the word employed in his first quo- 
tation. The object of the quotation in v. 6, is simply to prove, 
that the office of high priest was conferred on Christ by divine ap- 
pointment, comp. vs. 4 and 6. The particulars of the comparison, 
in respect to the priesthood of Christ and Melchisedek, are not im- 
mediately brought into view, bat suspended until the writer has in- 
troduced other considerations relative to Christ as a priest, 5: 7— 
9, and given vent to his feelings of concern for those whom he was 
addressing, by suggesting various considerations, adapted to reprove, 
5: 1I—14, to warn, 6: 1—49, as well as to excite and animate them, 
6: 10—20. 

In regard to zara tov aiwva, it is to be taken in a qualified 
sense here, as often elsewhere, e. g. comp. Luke 1: 33 with 1 Cor. 

VOL. II. 17 


130 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 6, 7. 





15: 24—28. The priesthood of Christ will doubtless continue no 
longer than his mediatorial reign; for when his reign as mediator 
ceases, his whole work both as mediator and as priest will have 
been accomplished. _ 

In respect to the application of Ps. cx. to the Messiah, see Matt. 
22: 41--45. Certain it is, from this passage, that Jesus considered 
and treated this Psalm as applying to himself. 

The three following verses I take to be a comment on 5:2; or 
to express my meaning more fully, a comparison of Christ, as a 
priest, with the Jewish priests, who, being themselves compassed 
with infirmity, were taught by experience peroconadery 01s ayvoou- 
ov xai ndavonmevors. It is, however, only the infirmities of one ex- 
posed to suffering, that are brought to view here. These Christ 
possessed in full, so that he could, like other priests, sympathize with 
those who.are tempted, and tried by suffering. None of his disci- 
ples are tried more severely than he was. 

The writer, however, does not complete this topic here. He 
breaks off, in order to pursue the course of thought to which the 
introduction of Melchisedek’s priesthood led him, and for the sake 
of inserting practical warning, reproof, and exhortation, 5: 11—6: 
25; and in 6:26 he resumes the consideration of the topic thus 
interrupted, and shews, that as to sinful infirmities, Christ was not 
to be compared with the Jewish priests; for he had none of them. 
Thus while, like other priests, he was fitted to exercise compassion 
on these who are suffering and are tempted, he was altogether su- 
perior to them in the moral perfection of his own character. He 
needed no sin-offering fox himself, (comp. 5: 4); but was high 
priest in a state, where he was «/¢ 1ov aiwva reréehecmpevor, 7: 26 

7. Os év ture jugoous ths cwox0s avrou, who, during the time 
of his incarnation. “fiuéyat, like the Heb. D2", means, time, sea- 
son. 71'j¢ oaoxog I understand, as designating the condition of 
the Locos incarnate, or év cuyxi; comp. John 1: 1, 14. 1 Tim. 3: 
16. ‘The whole expression designates the period of the Saviour’s 
humiliation, when ‘“ he was tempted in all points as we are, 4: 15.” 

Asnoss nai inernolas....... mooceviyxus, offered up prayers 
and supplications. These two words are often joined, by profane 
writers ; e. g. ixernoiag noddag nai denoecs nocovpevot, Isoc. de 
Pace. Xweie dé ixernyiug xai dejoews, Philo de Cherub. p. 116. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 7. 131 
<M as psa ea AS ip geen 
So also Lucian and Plutarch. Some critics have referred dey Gaus 
to prayers proceeding from a sense of need; and inernoiag to sub- 
missive intercession. But although, in some cases, the words may 
be thus employed, they are generally used as synonymous, or near- 
ly so. The conjunction of both these synonymes, denotes intensive 
supplication or intercession ; a mode of expressing intensity, which 
is very frequent in the sacred writings. 

Tloog ray dvvapevoy owterr aurov x Yavaror, i.e. to the sove- 
reion Lord of life and death, the “God in whose hands our breath 
is, and whose are all our ways:” a periphrasis, in this case, which 
means, God, who is possessed of supreme power, or, the sove- 
reign Lord of life and death. 

Mera uoavyns toyveas nat daxovwy, voce altd et lacrymis, 
with loud cries and with tears or weeping. See Luke 22: 41—44. 
Matt. 26: 38, 39. 27: 46. Mark 15: 34—36. Comp. Luke 12: 50. 
John 12: 27, 28. Koavyis ioyveas denotes the intensity of the 
voice, as raised high by agonizing supplication, Luke 22:44. The 
Evangelists do not mention the weeping of the Saviour; but who 
can doubt that he did weep, when he prayed in such an agony, that 
he sweat as it were drops of blood, Luke 22: 441 

Kai siounovotele and r4¢ eviafelas, and was heard in respect 
to that which he feared, or, was delivered from that which he feared. 
The classic sense of evdaeve is, fear, dread; and this is the sense 
in which it is commonly employed in the Septuagint. But as the 
Hebrew words 487" and Nj? mean, reverence and to revere, as 
well as fear and to fear or to dread, so the Greek evi Bere, evha- 
Brg, evhaBéw, are sometimes employed to designate the idea of 
reverence, and consequently (like mim? mx?) of prety, devotion, 
religion. But the usual classic sense of the word is to be prefer- 
red, in our verse, viz, fear, or object of dread, like the Hebrew 
xin. Hicaxovw and énaxovw are frequently employed, in the 
Septuagint, in order to translate the Hebrew verb 2»; and 722 
very often means, to answer a prayer or request. To answer a re- 
quest for deliverance, is to deliver or save from. This sense the 
verb 329 sometimes has; e. g. Ps. 22: 22, from the horns of the 
wild bull *1n723, deliver me, (the preceding parallelism has *23721"7, 
save me); Job 35: 12, from the pride of the wicked 7322 ND, he 
[God] will not deliver. So Ps. 118: 5, et al. We may render &6- 
axovodec, then, was delivered. Still, this is not absolutely neces- 


132 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 7—9. 





sary, inasmuch as he was heard in respect to the object of fear, 
gives the same sense, viz. from that which he dreaded Christ was 
delivered, or, his entreaties were listened to in respect to that 
which he dreaded. “470, like the Hebrew 472, 72, is sometimes 
employed i in the sense of, quod attinet ad, so that it accords with the 


general meaning of meoi; e. g.in Acts 17:2. See Schleusner 
Lex. a0, no. 18. Gesen. Heb. Lex. ja no. 4. If eioaxovodels be 


translated (as the Hebrew 2» in some cases should be rendered), 
was delivered, then the usual sense of azo is perfectly appropriate ; 
and, on this account, I have thought such a translation to be ‘pre- 
ferable, and made it accordingly. See Excursus XI. 

8. Kaineo wv viog....umaxony, although a Son, yet did he 
learn obedience by suffering ; i. e. although he was God’s only and 
well beloved Son, a personage of such exalted dignity, yet was he 
put to the trial of obedience in the midst of sufferings; or, he was 
subjected to learn experimentally, what it is to obey in the midst of 
sufferings. So I interpret this somewhat difficult and much agitat- 
ed verse. I cannot suppose the object of the writer to be, an asser- 
tion that Christ did not understand the nature of obedience or re- 
cognize the duty of it, before he suffered ; but that it pleased God 
to exalt him to glory, in the way of obedience rendered by suffer- 
ing as well as by action. Such is the sentiment in 2: 10. Of 
such an obedience our epistle speaks, in 10:7, quoted from Ps. 
40: 8, 9; and such is that mentioned in Phil. 2: 8, obedience unto 
death, even the death of the cross, which, in the sequel, is asserted 
to be the special ground of Christ’s exaltation to the throne of the 
universe. ‘To mention such an obedience here, is altogether ap- 
posite to the apostle’s desigh ; which was, fully to impress on the 
Hebrews the sympathizing and compassionate nature of the Sa- 
viour, and, his aes to succour those who were under sufferings 
and trials; comp. 2: 17, 18. 4: 15, 16. Me a same is implied in 5: 
1,.2. 

9. Kai reheewOeis .... aiwviou, then, when exalted to glory, he 
became the author of eternal salvation [he procured salvation] for 
all those who obey him. For rédevw@sis, see on 2: 10, where is 
the same sentiment as here; and where Christ, who is here said 
to be wizvog owrnoias, is called ror aonnyor TS owrnotac, which 
has the same meaning. As to chap. 2: 10, the whole of the pre- 
ceding context there, is occupied with shewing the exaltation or 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 95: 9, LO. 133. 





kingly dignity of Christ ; and to this state of exaltation tehecwmtets 
undoubtedly refers here. There is also conveyed, by v. 9, an inti- 
mation that Christ’s very sufferings stand in an intimate and nece aie 
sary connexion with his exaltation to the kingly office, so that he 
is a kingly priest, as Melchisedek also was. There is evident j 
necessity, however, of including vs. 7—9 in parentheses, as i, 
commentators have done; nor of regarding them as an interruptio * 
of the apostle’s discourse. The fact is, as we have seen in the 
illustration above, that a new topic or head is introduced by them re 
hie is broken off in the manner of Paul, in 5: 1], and resumed 
in 7: 26. 

0 Tloocayogevdeis .... Medyiledeu, being called by God, 

[as I was saying], a high priest, after the order of Melchisedek. 
Tlvocayoosuw means, to name, to salute by calling a name, to greet. 
The meanihg is, that Christ is greeted, or saluted, by the name or 
appellation, aoycegevs, 73>. In the Septuagint, Ps. 109: 4 [110: 
4], and above, in v. 6, it is isgevg. But the Hebrew 77> means 
either agysegets, or iegevs ; see Lev. 4: 16, et al.; so that the apos- 
tle might render the original, in Ps. 110: 4, by either Greek word ; 
as he has done. 

Having thus introduced the subject of Christ’s exaltation as 
priest, the nature of the comparison introduced, viz. the compari- 
son of Christ’s priesthood with that of Melchisedek, occasions the 
writer to stop short, in order to comment on this, and also to give 
utterance, in the first place, to his emotions of concern for those 
whom he addressed. The difficulty and obscurity of the subject, 
which he is about to discuss, are, in his view, occasioned principally 
by the low state of religious knowledge in those whom he address- 
es. This he tells them very plainly, in order to reprove them for 
the little progress they had made in Christian knowledge, as well 
as to guard them against objecting to what he is about to advance. 

11. TTegi ob sodug uly O Aoyos .... Aeysuv, respecting whom 
we have much to say. So Lysias in Panoc. nodve av ein Moe hoyos 
denysiobut. Dionys. Halicar. I. 23. aegi wy modvg av ein Aoyos. 

Kai dvocounvevtos, and difficult of explanation, from dvs and 
égunvevw. Critics frequently couple the word Azysey which follows, 
with dvozou7jvevtog ; but the example above, from Lysias, shews 
that it should be associated with the former clause of the verse. 
The grammatical construction or arrangement I take to be this: 






134 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 11, 12. 





negl ov [10] Atyecy, mohvg rjuiv [ey] 6 Aoyog; the infinitive Acyeu 
being used as a noun in the nominative, or as the subject of the 
sentence, according to a common usage. 

‘Eni voooi yeyovate vais anoais, since ye are dull of appre- 
henstion, or, slow in understanding. Taig exoais, lit. in hearing. 
But exovw, to hear, means often to perceive, to understand, like 
the Hebrew »72w. 

‘The reason why they are so dull in respect to understanding 
religious subjects, is next suggested by the writer; doubtless with 
the design of reproving those whom he addresses, for their neglect 
to make a suitable progress in Christian knowledge. 

12. Kai yag ogethovres..... yoovor, for when ye ought to be 
even capable of teaching, as it respects the length of time, viz. since 
ye made a profession of the Christian religion. The writer, doubt- 
less, does not mean to say, that the whole church whom he addres- 
sed should actually be teachers; but that they ought to have made 
advances enough in the knowledge of spiritual subjects, to be able 
to teach in them, or, in other words, ought to have made very con- 
siderable acquisitions in religious knowledge, considering the length 
of time that had elapsed since they professed to be Christians. ee, 
after, so before words signifying time; e. g. Matt. 26: 61. Mark 
14: 58. 2: 1. Acts 24: 17. Gal. 2: 1. 

Teh yostar éyeve .... 100 ov, ye have need that one should 
again teach you the very rudiments of divine doctrine. rocyeia, 
elements or rudiments of any science. Srovyera rng aoyns, the ru- 
diments of the beginning, is the same as Horace’s elementa prima, 
Serm. I. The idea is expressed by the phrase, very rudiments or 

Jirst elements, elementa prima. Tov hoyiay tov Geov, I should re~ 
fer particularly to those parts of the Old Testament, which have a 
respect to the Christian religion, and especially to the Messiah, 
were it not that in chap. VI. 1—3, the writer has shewn that he 
means the rudiments of Christian doctrine in its appropriate sense. 
Aoyioy Pov then must mean here, doctrines or communications of 
God, viz. which God has revealed under the gospel, i. e. divine 
doctrine, or doctrines of divine original. 

This feeble, imperfect, spiritual condition, the writer now de- 
scribes, by a very appropriate figure, taken from the aliment and 
condition of young children. 

Kat yeyovare yotiay .... teogns, and ye have become [like] 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 12—14. 135 





fase RUE RENO A LEY Bk AE er 
those who need milk, and not solid nourishment, lit. ye have become 
those who need, etc. But the particle of similitude is, in such ca- 
ses, very often omitted in the Old Testament and in the New. 
The meaning is, ‘ Ye have in spiritual things become as children 
are in regard to food, i. e. unable to bear or to digest any thing but 
the most light and simple nourishment ; ye cannot understand or 
bear the higher and more difficult doctrines, ye cannot properly 
apprehend them when they are proposed to you.’ Tpogy, nourish- 
ment, any kind of food, not meat only. r 

13. lag yoo 6 wsréyor .. .. vnmeog ag éott, now, every one 
who partakes of milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of salvation, for 
he is a child. ” Anevoos, inexpers, ineptus ad aliquam rem, i. e. one 
who has not that skill or experience in regard to any thing, which 
is requisite to a due apprehension and consideration of it. The 
sentiment is, ‘ As he, who must be fed with milk, is yet a child; 
so ye, who can bear only the lighter kinds of spiritual nourishment, 
are yet vyjnioe in religion.’ Adyou dexaeoovvys, doctrine of sal- 
vation, i. e. the gospel, or the Christian religion. The Hebrew 
Pp Ys and APIs are often equivalent to Hawn, statute, ordinance, 
rule of life. It is evident, here, that Oexouocuvys means, what the 
Christian religion sanctions or ordains. See Schleusner on Ove oe- 
osurn, no. 9. Or dexacoovyyn may be here rendered, grace, favour, 
i. e. the gospel which reveals grace, favour, pardon. 

14. Trleiwy O€ éorey 7 otevec ro0gn, but solid food is for those 
of mature age. Teheiov, adult, grown up, having attained comple- 
tion in a physical respect. See on 2: 10. 5: 9. 

Tay dia viv fw .... xax0v, who possess organs of sense, ex- 
ercised by practice, for distinguishing between good and evil. ‘The 
metaphor here, as in the preceding verse, is of a mixed nature ; the 
latter clause being appropriate to moral t¢jevov. The meaning is, 
that solid food, which is an image of the more difficult part of gos- 
pel doctrines, is appropriate to full grown men, i. e. to Christians 
who have come to a maturer state, and who, by experience in mat- 
ters of religion and frequent reflection upon them, have made ad- 
vances so as to be able to distinguish what is right and what is 
wrong respecting them. ”4vo0nr7jove here means the internal sen- 
ses of Christians, their moral powers or faculties of distinguishing 
and judging; although the term itself, in its hteral acceptation, 
designates the external organs of sense. Avaxgeow nahov nol #0- 


136 COMMENTARY ON BEB. 5: 14—6: 1. 





zou is borrowed from the Heb. >97 a3 532. See Gen. 2: 17. 
Deut. 1: 39, and comp. Is. 7: 15, 16. Jonah 4: 11. It is applied, 
by the Hebrews, to designate a more mature and advanced state of 
knowledge in respect to any thing, and not simply to the mere per- 
ceiving of a difference between the moral nature of good and evil. 
So in the verse before us; we cannot suppose the writer to mean, 
that the Hebrews were not yet rédscoz, in such a sense as to be 
able to discern the difference between good and evil, simply con- 
sidered. He evidently means, that they were in such a state, as not 
readily to discern what was true or false in respect to the more dif- 
ficult doctrines of the Christian religion ; they were not as yet ca- 
pable of rightly understanding and estimating them. From this 
state, it was their duty speedily to extricate themselves; as the 
writer proceeds to exhort them to do. 


CHAP. VI. 


1. Avo agevtes .... peowmeta., wherefore, leaving the first ru- 
diments of Christian doctrine, let us proceed to a more advanced state 
[of knowledge]. co I interpret here, in the usual sense. I un- 
derstand the reasoning of the apostle thus ; ‘ Wherefore, i. e. since 
réhevou only are capable of oregea toogy, solid food, viz. of receiv- 
ing, digesting, and duly appropriating the higher and more difficult 
doctrines of Christianity, and since ye are yet but yj20¢, although 
ye ought to be advanced in Christian knowledge, if regard be had 
to the long time that ye have professed the Christian religion, 5: 12 
—-14; v0, therefore, it becomes you to quit this state of immaturity, 
this yyacornre, and advance to a maturer state, to a redecornta.’ 
The reasoning is plain, when thus understood, and the connexion 
palpable. The word agévreg is capable of the signification given 
to it by this method of interpretation. “Aginue signifies, among 
other things, relinquo, abeo, discedo, relinquo post me, etc. and is fre- 
quently applied to quitting a thing, for the sake of going to some 


“different place, or of engaging in a different employment; e. g. 


Matt. 4: 20, 22. 5: 24. 18:12. 19:27. John 10:12. The meaning 
here I take to be this, ‘ Quitting the mere initial stage of pupilage, 
advance forward to a maturer state of instruction and knowledge ;’ 
or, ‘ Make such advances, that it shall be unnecessary to repeat e/- 
ementary instruction in the principles of Christianity, vs. 2, 3.’ 


« . 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6; 1, 137 





Others (and most commentators) understand ay évreg here in 
the sense of omitting, and apply it to the apostle in the following 
way ; ‘ Omitting now to insist on the first elements of Christian 
doctrine, let me proceed to the consideration of the more difficult 
principles of religion, not discussing, at present, the subject of re- 
pentance, baptism, etc.; which I will do, i.e. I will discuss the 
higher principles, if God permit ;’ or, (as some interpret this last 
clause), ‘ Which [first rudiments] I shall discuss by and by, Deo 
volente ;’? referring xad ToUTO moe oomer to the discussion of the doc- 
trines just mentioned. 

But a difficulty in admitting this interpretation, lies in the con- 
text which follows. According to the method of interpretation just 
proposed, the reasoning would be thus; ‘ Omitting now all discus- 
sion respecting the first rudiments of Christian doctrine, I will pro- 
ceed to disclose the more abstruse principles of the same ; for zt ts 
impossible (advvetoyv y « @) that apostates should be again renewed 
to repentance.’ Is there any coherence in such reasoning? If 
there be, it is, at least, very difficult to see it. But does the other 
method proposed, relieve the difficulty? Let us see. It stands 
thus ; ‘ Christian brethren, who ought by this time to be qualified, 
by your knowledge of religion, to become teachers of it, quit the 
state of ignorance in which you are. Let it not be necessary any 
more to teach you the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. Such 
progress we must make, Deo volente. Stationary we cannot remain ; 
we must either advance or recede. But guard well, I beseech you, 
against receding; advvaroy yay, etc. vs. 4—8.’ 

Two things, at least, must be admitted. The one, that the apos- 
tle taxes them with negligence in regard to an enlarged acquain- 
tance with religious doctrine; the other, that he cautions them 
against the awful consequences of apostasy. Now does it not fol- 
low, that he considers the state of comparative ignorance in which 
they were, as exposing them in a peculiar manner to apostatize ; 
and consequently, that he connects the danger of apostasy with re- 
proof in regard to religious ignorance, so as to rouse them to more 
effort, in order to acquire a better acquaintance with the grounds 
and principles of Christianity 2? And is not all this founded in the 
nature of things, as they have always existed? Are not the igno- 
rant most easily led away, by impostors and heretical teachers? 
The men who have prohibited the use of the Scriptures by the peo- 

VOL. I 18 


%, 


135 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 1. : 


ple at large, and who labour to suppress the diffusion of general 


knowledge, in order that the mass of the people may be kept in ig- 
norance, and so be moulded by them at their will, have well un- 
derstood the principle to which I have alluded. 

The caution of the apostle, then, I consider as amounting to 
this; ‘Guard well against ignorance of Christian doctrines, for 
lapse is easy to the ignorant, and recovery exceedingly difficult or 
impossible.’ I cannot, therefore, follow the usual method of ex- 
pounding either the verse before us, or the subsequent context. 

Deoupeta, the middle voice of geo, often signifies to go, to 
come, to travel, to move in any manner, or in any direction. Here 
géowmeto means, to advance, to go forward. 

Uy, nod Genzhiov xarafaddouevor petavoiac, not again lay- 
ing the foundation with respect to repentance; not again commenc- 
ing, (as we once have done), with the first elements of Christian 
doctrine, e. g. the subject of repentance, etc. Meravoias here 
means, the subject or doctrine of uezavore, see v. 2. The genitive 
Baatiouoy didayns, designates, in this case, the relation signifi- 
ed by in respect to; which is a very common use of the genitive ; 
see Buttmann’s Gram. § 119.6. 1. It is plain, that the writer does 
not here speak of repentance as an act, but as a doctrine or subject 
of consideration ; and so of the other subjects mentioned in the 
sequel. That repentance was inculcated as an initial doctrine and 
duty of Christianity, may be seen by consulting the following pas- 
sages, Matt. 4: 17. Mark 1: 15. Acts 2: 38. 17: 30, and others of 
the same kind. 

"Ano vexguv éoyor, from deadly works, i. e. in respect to works 
which cause death, misery or condemnation. Comp. 9: 14, and 
tov Gavarov in 2: 14. Or vexgog may be interpreted as meaning 
sinful, vicious ; asin Eph. 5: 14. Rom. 6: 13. 11: 15. Rev. 3: 1. 
It is not important which of these senses is adopted. The one im- 
plies the other. 

Kai niorews éni eov, faith in God, or, in respect to him. 
That this is an elementary principle of Christianity, is evident from 
the nature of the thing, as well as from Mark 11: 22. John 14: 1. 
Heb. 11: 6, and many other passages of the New Testament. 
Here, however, by faith in God, is to be understood, faith in the 
declarations which God has made to men respecting his Son, the 
Saviour of the world. Comp. Acts 16: 31. 


py & 
», 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6:2. 139 





2. Bantiouny dwWayns, the doctrine of baptisms. Here the 
word didaye is supplied by the writer; and I regard it as implied, 
before the preceding wstavoiag and aiorews. Some interpreters, 
however, point the text thus, Cantiouor, dduyns, i. e. of baptisms, 
of [elementary] instruction ; which is too improbable to need dis- 
cussion. The only difficulty lies in the plural word Panriouay ; 
since we know of only one Christian baptism. Hence, Schleusner, 
and many other critics, refer @anreouos only to the ceremonial 
washings of the Jews, in all the cases where it occurs; and they 
suppose that Gaxzoue is the only appropriate term, with which the 
rite of Christian baptism is designated. But what has the apostle 
to do here with Jewish ceremonial rites, as the first elements of 
Christian doctrine? Plainly nothing ; so that this exegesis cannot 
be admitted. ; 

Another and better explanation is, that Sanzzouemy does not dif- 
fer, in any important respect, from Saariopov. So, in John 1: 13, 
stands the plural aivarmy ; in 1 Cor. 7: 2, rac mogveiac ; in 2 Cor. 
7: 3, xagdiag; all instead of the singular, in each case. See 
many like cases, in Glass. Philol. Sac. I. p. 62, seq. So the plural 
number of verbs is often employed, when the subject is indefinite 
and of the singular number ; e. g. Mark 5: 35. comp. Luke 8: 49. 
Comp. also Heb. 9: 17, én? vexgo%s. Storr supposes Bantiouay to 
be used here in a kind of distributive sense, as the Hebrew plural 
often is; so that the sentiment is, ‘ the doctrine that every believer 
must be baptized.’ But however this may be, it is clear that no 
stress can be laid upon the use of the plural, as there are so many 
examples where it means no. more than the singular would do. 
Moreover, the Syriac Version has the singular here. In regard to 
the doctrine of baptism being an elementary deztrine, there can be 
no difficulty. The rite itself was an inifiatory one, for all who 
professed to be Christians. 

"Envdecews te yergav, imposition of hands. It is a very palpa- 
ble mistake, into which many Christians fall, who are not well ac- 
quainted with the rites of the primitive church, to suppose that im- 
position of hands was practised only Wethe case of ordaining per- 
sons to the holy ministry. It was common for the apostles to be- 
stow extraordinary gifts upon converts to Christianity, immediately 
after their baptism, by the imposition of hands. See Acts 2: 38, 
Ajwecde tyv Owoeay Tou ayiou avevmatos, comp. Acts 8: 14—19. 


he 
y® 


140 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 2—4, 


19: 1—6. Hence, éavdzoems yeco@v is reckoned as one of the 
things, the knowledge of which was communicated at an early stage 
of the Christian profession. 

‘ Avuoracens te vexorr, of the resurrection of the dead. Storr, 
and others, understand this here only of the resurrection of the 
pious. But I apprehend the sense is general; as in John 5: 28, 
29. Comp. Matt. 22: 31. Acts 4: 2. A general resurrection of the 
bodies of men, is a doctrine, which, if not left undecided by the Old 
Testament, is at least left in obscurity. The Jews, of the apostle’s 

dime, were divided in their opinion respecting it. Hence, it was 
insisted on with great earnestness by Christian preachers, as_be- 
longing to the peculiar and elementary doctrines of Christianity. 
It was connected, by them, with the account which every man is 
to render of himself to God; and such an accountability is a fun- 
damental doctrine of the Christian religion. 

Kui xoiparos atwviou, and of a judgment, the consequences of 
which are eternal. In such a sense is Auteurs said to be alwvia, 
in 9: 12; and dvadyxn to be aiwvia, in 13:20. -Both the resur- 
rection and the yudgment, in this case, pertain to the righteous and 
to the wicked. It is the general doctrine of a resurrection, and of 
responsibility and reward at the tribunal of God, which the writer 
means to describe. These doctrines were among those that were 
first preached, when men were to be instructed in the elements of 
Christianity. See Acts 17: 31. 10: 42, Rom. 2: 16. Matt. 25: 31 
seq. In regard to the eternal consequences of judgment, see Matt. 
25: 46, John 5: 29. Dan. 11: 2. 2 Thess. 1: 9. Matt. 18: 8. Mark 
9:.45, 48. * f Fi 

3. Kai rovro .... 6 20g, and this will we do, if God permit ; 
i. e. we will advance in Christian knowledge, go on éni reAscornre, 
should God be’pleased to spare our lives, and afford us continued 
opportunity of so doing. The frequency with which the writer of 
this epistle uses the first person plural, (xo/vwocg), is worthy of re- 
mark. It gives a more delicate’ cast to his reproofs, and to his 
comminations. ae 

4. ° Advvatoy yao, for it is impossible, i.e. we will go forward in 
the attainment of what belongs to Christians, and not recede ; for 
it is ¢mpossible, viz. that those who recede and apostatize should be 
recovered from their lapse; as the sequel avers. But does advve- 
tov here imply absolute impossibility, or only great difficulty ? The 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4. 141 





latter, Storr and many other critics reply. To vindicate this sen- 
timent, they appeal to Mark 10: 25, 27, and to the parallel passa- 
ges in the other evangelists. But this appeal is not satisfactory. 

In Matt. 19: 23, seq. Mark 10: 23, seq. and Luke 18: 24, seq. (all 
relating to the same occurrence), Jesus is represented as saying, 
* noig¢ Ovoxddwe shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of God !” 
He then adds, “ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a 

needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” 

His disciples are astonished at this, and ask, ‘ How is it possible, 

that any one [any rich man] can be saved, tis aga duvarae oud7- 
voe; Jesus replies, ‘ With men this is advyaroy; but with God 
all things are duvare.” Surely he does not mean merely, that 
this is very difficult with men, but, that it is beyond their power to 
accomplish it. 

The other examples of the use of this word in the New Testa- 
ment, are not at all adapted to favour the exegesis of Storr; e. g. 
Acts 14: 8. Rom. 8: 3. 15: 1, where the word, however, is figura- 
tively employed. But, if the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews 
is to be compared with himself, then is it quite certain, that edvva- 
tov will not bear the qualified sense, which Storr puts upon it. 
Comp. Heb. 6: 18. 10: 4. 11: 6, all clear cases of absolute wmpos- 
_ sibility, not of mere relative difficulty. These are all the instances 
in which the word is found, in the New Testament. Nor will 
“aresort to classic usage any better defend the interpretation of 
Storr. 

* Besides, if it could be shewn, that such a qualified sense were 
agreeable to the usws loquendi, in some cases, and therefore possi- 
ble, a comparison with Heb. 10: 26—31, would destroy all appear- 
ance of probability that such a sense is to be admitted here. If 
there “remains no more sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10: 26), for those 
who have apostatized, then is there no hope of salvation for them; 
as is clear from Heb. 10: 28--31. Moreover, to say merely, that 
it is very difficult to recover the lapsed Christians of whom the 
apostle is going to speak, would be at variance with the imagery 
employed to describe them and the ane awaits them, in vs. 7, 
8. For all these reasons, such an explanation of adtvaroy cannot 
be admitted. 

Tovs oxak gariodertas, those who have been once enlightened, 
i, é. instructed in the principles of Christianity. So garitw, in 


f= 


k es . 


142 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4. 





John 1: 9. Eph. 3: 9. Heb. 10: 32. In all the other passages of 
the New Testament, where this word occurs, it is employed in the 
sense of shining upon, throwing light upon, disclosing. It does 

- not, in ‘itself considered, imply saving illumination, but illumina- 
tion or instruction simply, as to the principles of the Chaiction re- 
ligion. 

Tevoauevove te tio Owozas Exoveariov, and have tasted of the 
heavenly gift. Ievoauevovg, tasted, does not mean, eztremis la- 
bris leviter degustare, merely to sip, or simply te apply for once to 

_ the palate, so as just to perceive the taste of a thing ; but it means, 
the full enjoyment, perception, or experience of a thing. When the 

Greek writers wish to communicate the former idea, they add 

ysilsouy axoorg to the phrase; e.g. “They are witnesses, of uy 

ysilecey Gxoors yevoausvoe THS Gidocogias adda .. . . EGtsadEvtEs, 
who have not only tasted with the extreme part of the lips [sipped] 
philosophy, but . = feasted upon it, Philo. Lib. I. de Monarchia. 
p- 816. So Piryiaieace; axoors roils ysiheouw yevouoPat, Hom. on 

Johan. 5: 19. But when a full experience or perception of any 

thing is meant, yedouae is used simply; e. g. of yevoupevor TIS 

_ gat, Philo. de Abraham. oper. I. p. 14. So rou advararou 
& yroosms yevourFear, Clem. Rom. I. 38. 

> In the New Testament, @averou yevecPat is, to experience 
death ; e. g. Matt. 16: 28. Mark 9:1. Luke 9:27. John 8: 52. 
Heb. 2: 9..Comp. also Luke 14: 24. 1 Pet. 2:3. So Herod. VI. 
5, yeveoPae ehev Peoiag, to experience [to enjoy] freedom. Pindar, 
Nem. Od. V. 596, z6var yeveodau, | to undergo toils. Soph. Trachs 
1108, clhoy te woytor nvoiwy éyevoaunry, I have suffered a 
thousand other evils. So the Hebrew t oro, Prov. 31: 18. Ps. 34: 9. 

But what is the heavenly gift, which “they have enjoyed, or the 
benefits of which they have experienced? Some have explained it 
as being Christ himself, by comparing it with John 4: 10. But it 
is doubtful whether-daoear there means Christ. It is more pro- 
bable, that it means beneficium, i.e. the kindness or favour which 
God bestowed, in ro. an opageenty to o the Samaritan wo- 
man, to converse with th iour. 

Others have represented dwgzav, as being the extraordinary 
gift of the Holy Spirit to Christians, in the primitive age of Chris- 
tianity ; and they have compared the phrase here with mvedea Gy- 
rov, in Acts 8: 19, which means the special gifts of the Spirit, and 





2 ¢ 


im ) 
. ph 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4, 5. 143 





which in 8: 20 is called ryjy dwgeay rov Geov. But the objection 
to this is, that the sequel of our text contains a repetition of the 
same idea, once at least, if not twice. 

For these reasons, I prefer the interpretation which makes 
dwoeac énovoaviou the same here, as xANGEMS énovouviov in 3: 1, 
i. e. the proffered blessings or privileges of the gospel. The sense 
is then plain and facile ; (1) They had been instructed in the ele- 
mentary doctrines of Christianity, gwriodévracg. (2) They had 
enjoyed the privileges or benefits of living under a Christian dis- 
pensation, i. e. the means of grace which the gospel afforded; and 
this is truly dwoea énovgeveos. I much prefer this mode of inter- 
pretation to any of the others. 

Kai peroyous yevnSévtas mvevuaros ayiou, and have been made 
partakers of the Holy Spirit. I understand this of the extraordi- 
nary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which the primitive Chris- 
tians enjoyed, and which were often bestowed by the imposition of 
the apostles’ hands. See above, on énv@eoews te yecowv, in v. 2. 
TevnOevrag is a more unusual word, in such a connexion as the 
present, than yevouevous ; but still, there are sufficient examples to 
shew, that occasional custom sanctions the use of it in such ca¥es 
as the present. 

5. Kal xadov yevoopevors Geov 6yuc, and have tasted the good 
word of God, i. e. enjoyed the consolations administered, or the 
a excited, by the divine promises which the gospel proffers. 
Tevoapevovs (as above) experienced, known by experience. Above, 
it is construed with the genitive after it; here with the accusative ; 
both according to Greek usage, although the former method pre- 
dominates. 

Kahov ....deov One, the divine promise, i.e. of good. So 
250 723 means, in Jer. 29: 10. 33: 14; also in Joshua 21: 45. 23: 
14, 15, in which last verse it is opposed to »4 725, promise of evil, 
commination. Kelov 6yua means, the word which respects good, 
i. e. the promise of blessings or favours. So Paul calls the gospel, 
inayyshiav Geov év Xytorm, 2 Cor. 1: 2 20. I prefer this simple 
method of explanation to all others. The gradation, moreover, of 
the discourse is more perceptible, than if é7jua be here construed 
as indicating merely evayyéhvov, which would make the whole 
clause to signify nearly, if not exactly, the same as anak gwrvoder- 
Fac. 


7, 


> 


. 


144 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 5, 6. 


Avvemers té wthhovtog uiwvos, and the miracles of the gospel 
dispensation. The sense here given to duvaperg is frequent in the 
New Testament ; see Matt. 7: 22. 11: 20, 21, 23. 13:58. Mark 
6: 5. Luke 10: 13. Acts 2: 22, al. I apprehend that the writer re- 
fers here to those extraordinary, miraculous occurrences, which 
took place in confirmation of Christianity ; viz. such as are advert- 
ed to in chap. 2:4. The phrase, duvauesg weddovtog aiwvos, dif- 
fers from the preceding petoyous .... mvevparos dyiov, in this 
respect, viz. that the latter relates to the special gifts and influ- 
ences of the Spirit, bestowed in general upon the primitive disci- 
ples ; while the former refers particularly to miracles of the highest 
order, which afforded peculiar proof that Christianity was a divine 
religion, and which are appealed to as such in 2: 4. In regard to 
pehhovros aéiwvos, see on olzoumevny uediovoay, in 2: 5. 

Thus interpreted, there is a regular gradation in the whole pas- 
sage. (1) They had been taught the principles or doctrines of 
Christianity. (2) They had enjoyed the privileges or means of 
grace, which the new religion afforded. (3) They had experienc- 
ed, in general, various gifts and graces bestowed by the Spirit. (4) 
They had cherished the hopes which the promises of the gospel 
inspire. (5) They had witnessed, (and perhaps he means to say, 
that some of them had experienced), those special miraculous pow- 
ers, by which the gospel was fully shewn to be a religion from — 
God; comp. 2:4. Thus they had the fullest evidence, internal 
and external, of the divine origin and nature of the Christian re- 
ligion. Consequently, if they apostatized from it, there remained 
no hope of their recovery. 

6. Kai nagunsoovtas, and have fallen away, have made defec- 
tion from, viz. from the gospel, or from all the experience and evi- 
dence before mentioned ; MUVATITT OD governing the genitive. The 
connexion stands thus, ’_4dvvarov yao tovs anak qurdEertag.... 
YEVOUMEVOUS TE.... xal yEevnOErtas....ned yEevouuEevous .... nal 
mapanesovras. In-compound verbs, nage is often taken to denote 
deterioration ; e. g. mao vey, desipere ; ee at. male 
ratiocinart ; mopaouduicern, , deformare; so naganincew, deficere 
ab. The falling away or WFickions which is here meant, is a re- 
nunciation of Christianity, and a return to Judaism. This implies, 
of course, a return to a state of active enmity and hostility to the 
Christian religion. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 6. 145 





Tlehiv avaxcervifery eg ustavorav, again to be renewed by repen- 
tance. Tladcv belongs to avaxacvigecy, not only by common usage 
in respect to the position of the adverb, when placed immediately 
before the verb which it qualifies, but the sense here requires it. 
‘The writer does not mean to say, ‘ Those who have a second time 
fallen away; but, that those who fall away cannot be again, or, a 
second time brought to repentance. Drusius, Cappell, Abresch, 
and others, take wvaxaevifecy here in the passive sense, as equiva- 
lent to avaxetviceoOaue ; and construe it, in connexion with what 
precedes, in this manner; ‘It is impossible for those who have 
been once instructed, etc. to be renewed to repentance.’ The sim- 
ple grammatical construction of avaxaifery, as it now stands in 
the active voice, is thus; ‘It is impossible again to renew by re- 
pentance those who have been once instructed, etc.’ If the laiter 
method of construing the sentence he adopted, who is the subject 
of the verb avaxucvigery ? i. e. who is the agent that is to produce 
this renovation? Is it God, i. e. the Holy Spirit, or Paul, or oth- 
ers? Brettschneider (Lex.) understands the word in an active 
sense, and supposes that Christian teachers are the agents to whom 
the writer refers. Storr renders it indefinitely, ‘‘Man kann unmé- 
glich wieder bessern,” one cannot possibly produce another amend- 
ment. But instead of saying one cannot, in this case, I should pre- 
fer understanding evexoevifecv in an impersonal sense, and render- 
ing it in English by our passive verb; since many verbs’ used im- 
personally convey a passive sense. See Heb. Gram. § 190. 2. note 
1. 2. 

There is still another construction which may be made of the 
passage, and which is a very common Greek one; viz. aduy aver 
nauvicery rovg anak gwreodertag.... xal MKOUTEDOVTRS, advve- 
tov, to renew, or, the renewal of, persons once instructed... . and 
who have apostatized, is impossible. In this case, the infinitive 
avaxacvigery is used as a noun, and makes the subject of the pro- 
position. This would afford the same sense, as that which was 
last suggested above. 

Eig weravocav, by repentance ; so BF ysostiin, Erasmus, and 
others. ig, with the accusative, often signifies the instrument or 
means. If it be construed otherwise, (as in the version which I 
have ronaig the sense will be ‘To renew them so that they will 
repent.’ See Excursus XII. 

VOL. I. 19 


146 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 6. 





‘ Avaotaveovrtas éavtoig tov viov tou Peou, since they have 
crucified for themselves the Son of God. Chrysostom construes av- 
aoraveovrtas as Meaning nad oraveovytag; and so our Eng- 
lish translators, and many others. But; this is not conformable to 
common Greek usage. “Ava, in composition, merely augments 
the intensity of a verb, if indeed it produces any effect upon its 
signification ; for oftentimes it does not, e. g. avactnteiv, avexol- 
ve, avadEewpeiv, avandnooety, etc. That the word in question is 
to be figuratively taken, is plain from the nature of the case. Ac- 
tual physical crucifixion is out of the question. It means, then, to 
treat with the greatest ignominy and contempt. 

But what does éauvroig mean? It is susceptible of two inter- 
pretations. (1) As dativus incommodi, i. e. to their own hurt, 
seame, etc. So Storr. See Winer’s N. T. Gram. § 24.2.6. (2) 
It may be construed as Hebrew pronouns in the dative frequently 
are,. viz. as pleonastic ; e. g. 52-42, go for thyself, i. e. go; I> 03, 
he has fled for himself, i.e. he has fled; Heb. Gram. § 210.3. I 
incline to the latter mode of explanation. Perhaps the shade of 
idea is, ‘ Crucifying, so far as they are concerned,’ or, ‘ Themselves 
being concerned in the transaction of crucifying.’ ~% 

Kai nagaderyuarifovras, and exposed him to public shame; 
comp. Matt. 1: 19. By renouncing their adherence to Christiani- 
ty, they would openly declare their belief that Christ was only an 
impostor, and of course, that he suffered justly as a malefactor. By 
returning again to Judaism, they would approve of what the Jews 
had done ; and thus they would, as it were, crucify Christ, and ex- 
pose him to be treated by unbelievers with scorn and contumely. 
Every one knows, that an apostate from a good cause gives new 
occasion, by the act of apostasy, for the enemies of that cause to 
utter all the malignity of their hearts against it. In this sense, 
apostates expose the Saviour to public infamy, when they renounce 
all regard for him, and join with those who view him as an impos- 
tor and a malefactor. 

The two participles, aveoraveovrtag.... xai magaderypart- 
Covras, | regard as grammatically connected with the preceding 
ones thus; rovs anak gwrodvrag.... xul nagamsoortus.... 
avacravyovrtas .... xal nayadseyparifovrasg ; the two latter 
words being in apposition with the preceding participles, and added 
for the sake of giving intensity to the whole description. On this 
account, xa is omitted before aveoravyodrrac. 


— 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 7. 147 








7. Ty yao .... verov, now the earth which drinketh in the rain 
that frequently comes upon it. Ty is used for land cultivated or 
uncultivated. Here it designates the former; as is evident from 
the sequel of the sentence. The image of the earth being thirsty, 
and drinking in the showers, is common in many languages. 

Kai tixtovoe Boravyy, and produceth fruits. Tixtovoa is of- 
ten applied, by classical writers, to the production of fruits. Bora- 
yyy, like the Hebrew ainy, means, any kind of grain, any produce 
of vegetation, which is fitted for the service of man. But this use 
is Hebraistic. By classic usage, Poravy means, herbage or, vege- 
tation, not including bread-corn. 

"Evterov éneivoeg Ov ove yewoyertat, useful to those on account 
of whom it is cultivated. “#vGerov means, in its primary sense, 
well situated, well located ; e.g. it is applied to a convenient harbour 
for ships, etc. Useful, appropriate, etc. are secondary meanings, 
which the word frequently has. 4c ovs, on account of whom. 
That this is the usual signification of ova with the accusative, all 
will acknowledge ; and as the sense demands no departure here 
from the usual construction, it is better to retain it, than to trans- 
late by whom. 

MerohopPavec evhoyiag ano tov Peov, lit. receiveth blessings 
from God. But what is the meaning of this? Is it, that the 
earth is, when thus fruitful, contemplated with satisfaction or com- 
placency by its creator? Or does it mean, ‘The earth which 
thus produces useful fruits, is rendered still more fruitful by divine 
beneficence ?’ The latter seems better to accord with the Hebrew 
idiom. E. g. when Jacob approaches Isaac, clad in Esau’s per- 
fumed garments, Isaac says, The odour of my son, is like the odour 
of a field which God has blessed, i. e. of a fruitful field, with blos- 
soming herbage. So, on the contrary, the curse of the earth, in 
Gen 3: 17, is explained in v. 18 by adding, “ Thorns and thistles 
shall it bring forth unto thee.” In Mark 11: 14, our Saviour says 
of the barren fig tree, “ Let no one ever henceforth eat any fruit 
of thee ;” to which Peter afterwards alluding, says, ‘‘ Lo! the fig 
tree which thou didst curse, Mark 11: 21.” In 2 Cor. 9: 6, Paul 
says, “‘ He who soweth én svdoyiaus, bountifully, shall reap za 
evhoyiats, bountifully.” Agreeably to this idiom, the phrase in 
question might be explained, zs rendered still more fertile, or pro- 
ductive, by God. But although most commentators of note have 


148 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 7, 8. 





adopted such an interpretation, I hesitate to receive it; and this, 
because the metaphor thus explained does not seem well adapted to 
the object for which it is used. The image of the fruitful earth is 
designed to signify, ‘ Christians who bring forth fruits under divine 
cultivation.” Supposing, then, that such Christians are here desig- 
nated, (as plainly is the case), does the writer mean merely to say, 
in addition, that they will be rendered still more fruitful in good 
works? Or does he mean to say, that when they thrive under the 
cultivation which they enjoy, they will obtain divine approbation 
and complacency? I incline to the latter interpretation, as tend- 
ing more directly to exhibit the object which the apostle has in 
view. . 

Moreover, the antithesis in v. 8, presents the image of displeas- 
ure, of punishment. Consequently, the image of complacency, of 
reward, is presented in v. 7. I should, then, rather interpret the 
phrase, receiveth blessings from God, as referring to the complacen- 
cy or approbation with which God regards the fruitful earth. The 
sense is similar to that, in which he is said, in Gen. 1., to have re- 
garded all the works of his hands, and considered them as good. 
The increased fruitfulness of the earth would indeed be the conse- 
quence of the divine blessing; and may, by metonymy, be taken 
for the blessing itself. But the other method of exegesis seems 
more simple. I might say, perhaps, that it is rendered almost cer- 
tain by v. 8, where the earth, which brings forth thorns and this- 
tles, is considered merely as xatagaus éyyus, nigh to a curse, i. e. 
in danger of one. Yet, if commentators have rightly construed 
evhoyias, inv.7, as meanjng fruitfulness, then zetaoa in v.8 
must mean barrenness. But the land is already barren, which pro- 
duces only thorns and briars ; consequently it is not merely nigh to 
barrenness as a curse to come. As then the antithesis of svioyiac 
(viz. zaruga), does not ‘mean barrenness, so evioyiag does not 
mean, fruitfulness. 

8. “Exqégovou 62 [sc. 1 77] .... zyyis, but the earth, which 
bringeth forth thorns and briars, is useless and near to utter rejec- 
tion, which will end in burning. Kutaou, ersecratio, -maledictio, 
extrema atque dirissima devotio. * Such’ barren ground, producing 
nothing but thorns and briars, is not only useless to the owners, but is 
given up or devoted by them to be overrun with fire, and to have 
all its worthless productions consumed. ‘The explanation of this 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 8, 9. 149 





phrase in our Lexicons and in most of the commentaries, seems to 
me plainly incongruous, as I have just hinted above. Is not the 
earth which produces nothing but thorns and briars, already bar- 
ren? How then can this earth, be merely xoraou¢ éyyvse, i. e. (as 
they explain it) only near to barrenness ? The method of interpre- 
tation above proposed, avoids this incongruity, and adopts a more 
easy and natural explanation. Such earth is (1) Useless, adoxiuos, 
deserving reprobation. (2) An object of execration, or nigh to be- 
ing given up to the flames, which at last will consume all its worth- 
less productions ; 1. e. when the owner of such barren ground has 
made the experiment, long enough to see what its qualities are 
(<doxiucoe), and finds it to be barren, then he considers it as 
adoxeuos, proved to be worthless after trial, to be condemned, and 
determines speedily to abandon it (xaragas éyyvs), and to subject 
it to the flames. */7¢ 10 redog «ig xavouv, which [xuraga] will end 
in [will be accomplished or completed by] burning. Eig xavoev 
is Hebraism, corresponding to the use of the infinitive nominascens, 
with the prefix 5, Heb. Gram. § 200. 3. So Is. 44: 15, oak bobo 
qyab , LXX. iva i... eto xavow? and it shall be burned. ‘This 
mode of interpretation represents the execration of barren land 
(xataoa), as ending in xavorg; which agrees with fact. 

Others refer 7¢ to yy, i. e. the end of which land is burning. 
But I prefer the grammatical antecedent, xaraoa. 

Thus construed, the whole affords a very striking image of the 
condition of the Hebrews. ‘ You,’ the writer says, ‘ are enjoying 
abundant means of spiritual improvement. If you act in a manner 
worthy of such privileges, God will approve and bless. But if you 
disobey the gospel, and become wholly unfruitful in respect to 
Christian graces, then you are exposed to final rejection and end- 
less punishment. ‘The doom of all apostates is near, and the se- 
quel will be tremendous.’ 

But lest what he had now said might wear the appearance of 
too much severity, and seem to imply a great degree of distrust or 
want of confidence in respect to those whom he addressed, the 
writer proceeds to shew what is the real state of his feelings to- 
wards them, and that he has, out of affection for them and solici- 
tude for their highest welfare, so plainly and fully set before them 
the danger to which they were exposed. 

9. Hlensiousda 02... . Aehovduev, but we confidently hope for 


150 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 9, 10. 


better things respecting you, beloved, even those connected with sal- 
vation, although we thus speak. Kgeirrove. [i. e. noaypwara] I un- 
derstand as referring to what had just been said, in which the con- 
duct and the doom of apostates had been represented. ITeneioue- 
Bu ugeitrova then means, ‘I confidently hope that you will neither 
imitate the conduct, nor undergo the doom, of apostates, whose 
end is si¢ xavouv.’ 

*Eyoueva owrnoias, lit. near to, conjoined with, salvation. The 
form of expression appears as if it were designed to correspond 
with the preceding zxaragas eyyu9s ; i.e. as apostates are HOTUOUS 
éyyves, so those, who persevere in maintaining the true religion, are 
éyouevos owrnoias; i. e. their salvation is at hand, their time of 
deliverance from trials, and their season of reward, is certain, and 
will not be long protracted. To refer owrnuiag here merely to the 
temporal safety of believing Hebrews, seems to me very foreign to 
the object of the writer ; although some critics of note have done 
this. 

10. Ov yao a&dixos 6 M20¢, for God is not unkind, or, God is 
kind. The apposite of edvxog is dixavos, which, among other 
meanings, not unfrequently bears that of kind, benevolent, indulgent, 
merciful; see Matt. 1: 19. John 17:25. 1 John 1:9. So in He- 
brew, -°7= and =P 5x often mean, kind, kindness, merciful, mercy, 
etc. ” Adcxos, therefore, may mean unkind, unmerciful etc ; and 
this sense of the word is most appropriate to the passage. 

Tov éoyou vuav, xai tyg ayanng. Many codices, and most 
editions, read tov éoyov mov xal tov xonov r7A¢ ayanns. But 
Griesbach, Knapp, and Tigtmann, omit rod xon0v; which, howev- 
er, is defended and received by many critics of good reputation. 
“Eoyov and xomog.are not unfrequently joined by the sacred wri- 
ters; e.g. 1 Thess. 1: 3. Rev. 2:2. 14: 13. But the weight of 
authority appears to be against the genuineness of zonov here. 

Instead of putting a comma after vumy, we may point the 
phrase thus, row éoyou vu nal r49 ayanns: regarding 17g aya- 
m7 as sustaining the place of an adjective in respect to goyov. 
Such constructions are very common in the sacred writings, 1. e. 
Hendiadys. The translation would then be, your benevolent labour ; 
or (if this be more agreeable), your labour and benevolence, which 
ye have exhibited. But, on the whole, I rather prefer making 
Zoyov refer to the efforts which the Hebrew Christians had made, 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 10—12. 151 


and &yann to the state of mind toward God which they had cherish- 
ed. I have translated accordingly. 

Eig v0 Ovowe avrov, toward him, i. e. toward God, or toward 
Christ. So dvoue is often used for person; e. g. Matt. 6:9: John 
17: 26. Acts 10: 43. John 20: 31. Acts 4:10. So pw, name in 
Hebrew, Ex. 23: 21. 1 K. 8: 29. 3: 2. Ps. 20: 1, et al. saepe. 

Avanovnourtes .... Ovaxovourres, having performed kind of- 
Jices to Christians, and in still performing them. Avaxovéw signi- 
fies, not merely to supply the wants of others by pecuniary aid, and 
by alms, but also to assist them in any way by offices of humanity 
and kindness. In this enlarged sense, it seems natural to under- 
stand it here. ‘Aytovs, Christians, i. e. those who were consecrated 
to God, or to Christ ; comp. 3: 1. 

lL. Tyv avrny évdsixvvodae onovdrny .... téhous, may exhibit 
the same diligence, for the sake of a full assurance of hope even to 
the end, i. e. the end of life, or the end of their probationary state ; 
comp. 3: 6. novdyv, strenuous endeavour, diligent exertion, 
sedulity. ‘The meaning is, ‘I wish you to continue active and 
benevolent efforts, such as you have already made, even to the end 
of your Christian course, so as to acquire, or, to preserve the full 
assurance of Christian hope.’ JIAnvogogia and nAnooqogew are 
New Testament and ecclesiastical words, not employed by the 
classics. ITAngogogia is a full burden or lading. If applied toa 
fruit tree, it would designate the fulness or large burden of the 
fruit ; applied to the lading of a vessel, it would denote the fulness 
of the cargo. Phavorinus explains niynoogognoor by miijowoor; 
and, in like manner, nAyngogogiay here does not appear to differ 
from mAjowpua or mAjowouw. The meaning of the writer is, ‘I 
desire that your diligence in good works should be persevered in, 
so that you may continue to cherish a full or confident hope, viz. of 
salvation, even to the end of life.’ In this way, they would be 
most effectually guarded against apostasy ; for he who, on true 
grounds, cherishes the hope, which the Christian religion encoura- 
ges, of future glory and reward, will hardly be tempted to abandon 
his religion, and exchange it for another. 

12. “Sve wy vodoot yevnote, that ye may not be remiss, viz. in 
the discharge of your Christian duties. Nw&goi, tardi, segnes, is 
applied either to body or mind, to external actions or internal con- 
ceptions. 


152 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 12, 135. 


Munrat 62 rv dv niotews ... . Enayyehiag, but imitators of 
those, who through faith and patient expectation have entered on the 
possession of promised blessings, 1.e. who after continued belief 
(aiorews) in the existence of those blessings, and patient waiting 
(uwaxoo@vuias) until the time of trial is finished for the possessiog 
of them, have at last realized the object of all their faith and pa- 
tient expectation. JJioreg means here, belief in the reality of prof- 
fered future blessedness, (see Heb. 11: 1, 2 seq.) ; and paxooduuce 
the patient waiting for it, amid all the troubles and trials of life. 
Some make a Hendiadys of the two words miozews and paxooPuui- 
as, and render them patient faith. I prefer the other method of 
explanation, as communicating a fuller meaning of the apostle’s 
words. 

Kinoovonovrtwy tas énayyshiag. Kinoovousw, to acquire, to 
obtain possession of, see on chap. 1: 4. “Eneyyehiag in the plural, 
in order to indicate promises of various kinds, both in respect to 
temporal and spiritual good, the proffered blessings which the an- 
cient worthies did at last enjoy. 

How directly it was to the writer’s purpose, to exhort the He- 
brews to persevering faith, and patient waiting for future blessings 
proffered by the Christian religion, is too evident to need any illus- 
tration. Such a course would be directly opposite to that abandon- 
ment of faith and discouragement of mind, which led directly to 
apostasy. 

13. To yao ASoaau.... 90g, when, for example, God had 
made a promise to Abraham. Tao, introduced in such a connex- 
ion, i. e. between the proposal of a doctrine or encouragement, and 
the relation of a fact which is to illustrate it, may well be explained 
by the phrase, for example; as it conveys the same idea in Greek, 
which these words do in English. 

"Enel nat ovdevosg.... éaurov, seeing he could swear by no 
greater, he sware by himself. Eiye, could, poterat. Comp. Mark 
14: 8. Luke 7: 42..12: 4. 14:14. John 14:39. Lucian, Dial. 
Mort. 21. 2, ‘‘ Concerning all these things, eime?y av Zyouue, T could 
speak.” Elian. Var. Hist. I. 25, “I honour thee Gmnre xai one 
éyw, in whatever way and whenever J can.” 

Kat ovdevos. The genitive, with xara before it, usually fol- 
lows the verb ouvvme, when the object is designated by which a 
person swears. So Aesop. Fab. 68, 7] uéy ovg @uvve nace to” Ag~ 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 13—15. 153 
PA eet IO hE SER ts Stee ee CE ARMM 


godirns, swore by Venus. The accusative with xatoa, or the da- 
tive with éy, may also be used. 

"Quooce xaF éxvtod, Hebrew *nyBW2 72, Gen. 22: 36... The 
formula of an oath of this kind, is found in Num. 14: 21, >: ik. 
So in Num. 14: 28, mimt ON2 "8 ‘a; and in Deut. 32: 40, “mn 
BIDE DIN, i rey ever. 

14. Ayo 7 wiv. ... ninduve os, saying, I will greatly bless 

thee, and exceedingly multiply thee, i. e. I will give thee a numerous pa 
offspring. In Gen. 22: 17, which is quoted here, instead of sim- ~~ 
ply 1AnGuvo oe, the Hebrew runs thus, FS937NN ABN 73771, 
I will greatly multiply thy seed; but im Ger 17: 2, it is MBN 
IN IN2 Te, Twill multiply thee. The apostle appears to unite 
both expressions, in the quotation before us. The obvious idea of 
both passages is, ‘1 will give thee a very numerous posterity.’ 

Mnyyv, certo, profecto, i. q- Ovtwe. Evioyov Evhoyyow . . _ why Ov- 
vov akyOvved. Such a reduplication is very common in Hebrew, 
where, for the most part, it denotes intensity, Heb. Gram. § 199. 2. 
The frequency of it, in the Hellenistic writers, is Hebraism ; but thes’ 
formula itself is not without many examples in the Greek writers. 

E. g. Lucian. Dial. Menel. sub fine, av gidov. Xen. Cyrop. V. 
necdov énecoe. VIII. vnaxovmr Um xOUCE. Polyb. evzouevos 
AvEaro oie Veoig. Herod. IV. 23, zarapevymr xaragevyn. Diod. 
Sic. Tom. I. p. 717, xataneuwas éxeuye. That intensity is de- 
signed in our text, is clear from consulting the context in Gen. 





—Xxu. and xv. 

Tn 9vve is found in what is usually called the second future 
circumflex. But verbs in A, u,v, @, have no other future; see 
Buttmann, Gram. § 86. 8 

15. Kai ovr paxgoduunoas .... énayyshias, and so, having 
patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Kai ouTw, 
may be construed as equivalent to xai tote, vel xai émecta, and 
then, and afterwards. So ourw in Acts 7:8. 20: 11. Rom. 11: 
26. Thess. 4:17. Rev. 11:5. Schneider (Lex.), ovzm, folglich, 
sonach. Schleusner (Lex.), ovrw, séc tandem, tum demum, deinceps 
etiam. But I rather prefer the sense of so here, which means, in 
accordance with the promises just recited. “Bnevuye TNs énayyeh- 
ac, the noun being in the genitive : for énuruyyavw governs either 
the genitive or accusative; see Matt. Gr. Gram. § 363. 5. 

But what was the promised blessing which he obtained? The 

VOL. II. 20 


a 


154 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 15—17. 





same, I reply, which the preceding context designates, viz. the 
blessing Ha posterity, which should become numerous. When 
Abraham was called by God out of Haran, and the promise of a 
numerous posterity made to him, he was seventy five years old, 
Gen. 12: 1—4. Twenty four years elapsed after this, while he was 
a sojourner in a strange land without any fixed place of abode, be- 
fore the manner in which this promise would be fulfilled was re- 
vealed to him, Gen. 17: 1—16. It was only when he was an hun- 
dred years old, that the promised blessing of a son, from whom 
should spring a great nation, was obtained, Gen. 21: 1—5. The 
preternatural birth of such a son, was deemed by Abraham a suffi-— 
cient pledge, on the part of God, that all which he had promised 
respecting him would be fulfilled, Gen. 22: 15—18. Heb. 11: 8— 
12, 17—19. Rom. 4: 17—22. Other blessings, besides that of a 
numerous posterity, were connected with the birth of Isaac and the 
faith of Abraham, Gen. xxu. latter part of v.17 with v.18. These 
blessings Abraham did not obtain, indeed, by actual possession ; 
but by anticipation, confident hope, and unwavering faith in the 
promises of God ; comp. John 8: 56. In our text, however, the 
apostle refers to the promised blessing of a son, which after long 
waiting, Abraham obtained. 

16." AvOoomoe uév yao... . Ouvdover, now men swear by one 
who is superior, i. e. men appeal to God, when taking an oath, as a 
witness of their sincerity, and as an avenger of falsehood and _per- 
jury. 

Kai maons avroig.... 0 dono, and the oath for confirmation 
makes an end of all dispute among them ; i. e. an oath, that contes- 
ting parties will abide by* terms of amity and concord agreed 
upon, puts an end to the disputes which had existed, the parties re- 
lying upon an engagement of a nature so solemn. An oath, then, 
is the highest pledge of fidelity which men ‘can give.' _duroig is 
the dative after avridoyiag, viz. avreduyias [yj éore] avrois. 

Such is the custom of men, when avriduyia, contradiction, ques- 
tion, calling in question, dispute, is to be quieted. God has conde- 
scended to act in a similar way, for our encouragement, and to 
confirm our belief in his promises. 

; we @ mMéQvOOLTEVOY ....1HS Enayyediac, on account of 
which, (i. e. because an oath removes all dispute or doubt) God, 
desirous of shewing those to whom the promises are made. ‘Lv «, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 17, 18. 155 





on account of this, see Wahl on év, no. 5. TTsgvoodregov, abun- 
dantly, modo eximio, insigniter. °EnwWeziéoe, to demonstrate, to ex- 
hibit so as to prove. KaAngovomors, i.e. Christians; comp. 4: 1, 
3, 9. 

To aperaderov trys Bovdns avrov, the immutability of his pur- 
pose, or, of his decree ; for the will of God is the decree of God. 

"Euesirevoev don, interposed by an oath. Meowtsvm means, 
according to classical usage, to act the part of a mediator, to be an 
internuntius, conciliator, between two parties. But here, this 
sense is impossible. God is not a mediator between himself and 
the heirs of the promise. The sense of interposing, then, becomes 
a necessary one. So the Vulgate, interposuit jusjurandum. We 
made a weoirny (so to speak) by an oath, interposed between him- 
self and the heirs of promise; i. e. he made an oath the means of 
removing all doubt or question, on their part, whether he would 
faithfully perform what he had promised. 

18. “/va dua Ovo moayuarwv .... Fedv, so that by two immuta- 
ble things, in regard to which it is impossible that God should prove 
faithless ; i. e. since men’s doubts are removed by appeai to an 
oath, God, in condescension to their weakness, has also made con- 
firmation of his promises by an oath, so that there might be no pos- 
sible ground of doubt. But what are the two immutable things? 

j; “His promise and his oath, answer almost all the commentators and 
critics. But there is room to doubt the correctness of this inter- 
pretation. ‘The apostle in the preceding context has mentioned 
two oaths of God, which have respect to the salvation of believers. 
The one is in the context immediately preceding, v. 13; which in 
Gen. 22: 15—18, stands connected with the promise of a_ blessing 
to all nations (v: 18), through the seed of Abraham, i. e. through 
the Messiah. The other is implied in Heb. 3: 11; where the 
oath that unbelievers shall be excluded from the rest of God, im- 
plies of course an assurance of the same nature, that believers shall 
be admitted to it; comp. 4: 5,6. Perhaps, however, the second 
oath, is that, by which the Messsiati; is constituted a high priest after 
the order of Melchisedek, Ps. 110: 4; and which had been twice 
adverted to by the writer, in the secon dine part of his epistle, 5: 6, 
10. This would best agree with the sequel, in 6: 20, where the 
writer recurs to the order of Christ’s high priesthood, and thus 
shews that it was, at that time, in his mind. Here, then, are the 


a! 


156 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 18. 





two immutable things, in which believers may confide ; viz. first, 
the oat et Abraham should have a Son (the Messiah), in whom 
all nations should be blessed, Gen. 22: 18; secondly, the oath that 
this Son should be high priest forever, after the order of Melchise- 
dek, Ps. 110; 4. These two oaths it is impossible God should dis- 
regard; and the salvation of believers, therefore, is adequately and 
surely provided for. 

In this opinion, I find that Storr for substance agrees. 

On the other hand, to represent the promise and the oath te 
confirm the same, as the two immutable things, seems to be inappo- 
site; for the writer here states, that what is sworn to, even among 
Men, must be regarded as fixed or established. The more surely, 
what God has once solemnly declared can never be annulled. The 
two things, then, which are immutable, are the two different oaths, 
viz. that in Gen. 22: 15—18, and that in Ps. 110: 4; to which the 
writer had repeatedly adverted. 

‘Loyvoay nugaxhnow .... éhnidos, we, who have sought a re- 
Suge, might have strong persuasion to hold fast the hope which is set 
before us. That is, God has made adequate provision for the sal- 
vation of all, who prove faithful to the cause of Christ ; and he has 
secured it by oaths, made at different times, and on diverse occa- 
sions. The certainty, then, of obtaining the reward promised to 


- fidelity, constitutes a powerful motive to persevere, for all those 


who have sought a refuge from the power and penalty of sin, in the 
religion of Jesus. JIaoaxAnowy, in the sense of comfort, consola- 
tion, is common in the New Testament; but according to the 
classical use of the word, it means, excitement, exhortation, persua- 
sion, etc. This latter use of the word is common also to the New 
Testament writers; and in this sense I understand it, in the verse 
before us. Consolation is not so appropriate to the writer’s object 
here, as excitement, (Anregung, Schneider), persuasion. 

‘Joyvoay means, powerful, i. e. having great force, proffering 
strong motives. 

Oi xaragvyortes, we who seek a refuge. Karopedvyw means 
to flee toward, to flee to, to flee under, viz. a place of refuge, an asy- 
lum; which latter is generally designated after the verb. But 
here, of xatguyovteg seems to be employed as a periphrasis, in or- 
der to designate Christians who are seeking a refuge from sin and 
sorrow. In like manner owCouevoug is employed, in Acts 2: 47. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 18, 19. 157 





Koornous, to hold fast, to take firm hold of, to grasp with tena- 
city, Hebrew pin. "Ednidog, hope, here means the objects of hope, 
i. e. the objects of Christian hope, for which Christians hope, or 
which they expect; just as émayysAia above means, the objects 
promised, the things promised ; and so, often, in respect to many 
other words of a similar nature. ITgoxecuevys, proposed, set forth, 
is a word which was employed in respect to the @@Aov or prize of 
victory, in the Grecian games. This was said syoxetodas, to be 
proposed or set before the competitors. So, in our text, the object of 
hope, viz. future happiness and glory, deliverance from sin and 
sorrow, is set before all Christians, who are HUTUPVYOVTES, seeking 
a refuge from their guilt and miseries. And the repeated oath of 
God assures them, that such a refuge is to be found, and also af- 
fords a powerful excitement to seek it. 

19. “Hy we aynvoay.... BeBatar, which we have as an anchor 
of the soul unfailing and firmly fixed; i. e. which hope we are in 
possession of, £yomev, and it will prove to us, in our troubles and 
distresses, what an anchor of sound materials and firmly fixed will 
be to a ship in a tempest ; i. e. it will keep us from ‘“ making ship- 
wreck of the faith.” Many commentators refer yy to nagaxAnou ; 
but it seems to me quite contrary to the manifest object of the pas- 
sage. Hope is often represented under the emblem of an anchor, 
among the heathen writers. “/oqad7 means, that which will not 
fail, i. e. like an anchor of good materials, which will not give way. 
BeBaiay means firmly fixed, i.e. having a tenacious hold, which 
cannot be slipped. 

Kai eiceoyouevny .... xatanetaouaros, and which enters in- 
to that within the vail, i. e. which hope enters into the inner sanc- 
tuary, the sanctum sanctorum, where God dwells. Others refer 
eLoeoyouevny to wyzvgav. The meaning, as I explain the passage, 
is, that the objects of hope are in heaven, where God dwells. The 
apartment within the vail of the temple at Jerusalem, was that in 
which the ark of the covenant was placed, and also the cherubim 
that shadowed the mercy seat. There the glory of God appeared. 
This inner sanctuary was an emblem of heaven; see Heb. 9: 1— 
11, 23. 10: 1. The phrase éowregov rou xataneraouaros, here 
designates an image of heaven. 

The sentiment of the writer, then, is as follows. <‘ Hold fast 
the objects of your Christian hope. These will keep you steady 


7 


958 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 19. 


in adherence to your holy religion, and preserve you, like an an- 
chor, from making shipwreck of the faith. ‘These objects of hope 
are heavenly in their nature, 7 édnlg.... ecoegyzouevn €ig 10 éow- 
TEQOV TOU xatanétaouatos. Consequently, these objects are im- 
mutable, and so aogadeis xa BeBacor, like a good anchor.’ 

“Onov moodopos ....'/noous, whither Jesus our precursor has 
gone, on our account. IIyodgouos.... eio7AGev, I take to mean 
simply, that Jesus has first led the way into the heavenly sanctua- 
ry. So Aeschylus, Her. ad Theb. v. 217, meodgouos 7AGs, i. q. 
moonAde. Theodoret makes an appropriate remark on this pas- 
sage. ‘* The writer designs-to increase their confidence by calling 
Jesus nyodoouos ; for if he is their precursor, and has gone thither 
on their account, then ought Christians to follow after him, so as 
to attain the end of their course, Theod. in loc.” 

The expression in the latter part of v. 19, e<osoyouevn ei¢ 10 éo0- 
TEQOY TOU xaTaMETHOMATOS, Seems to have been purposely chosen 
as a periphrasis of the heavenly sanctuary, in order to direct the 
minds of the Hebrews to the priesthood of Christ; of which the 
writer now proceeds to treat, after having suspended the considera- 
tion of it from chap. V. 11. to chap. VI. 19, in order to introduce 
matter of warning and encouragement. It was lawful for the high 
priest only to enter, through the vail, into the inner sanctuary. 
So Jesus, as high priest of the new dispensation, entered the eter- 
nal sanctuary above, making expiation of perpetual efficacy for sin- 
ners, Heb. 9. 11, 12, 22—26. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 1. 159 


en 


Having thus reproved them for the little progress which they had made in Christian knowl- 
edge, 5: 1I—VI. 3; warned them against the dreadful consequences of abandoning the Chris- 
tian religion, 6: 4—8 ; and encouraged them to hold fast their faith and hope even to the end, 
as they had the example of Abraham, and the oath of God to assure them of an adequate re- 
ward, 6: 9--19; the writer now returns to make the comparison of Christ as high priest, 
with Melchisedek, whose name in connexion with that of Christ, had been already more than 
once introduced, 5: 6, 10. This subject he pursues to the end of 7: 25; where he resumes the 
topic broken off at 5: 10, and completes what he had to say concerning it, 7: 26—28. 


CHAP. VII. 


1. Odrog yao Medyiledéx, now this Melchisedek, i. e. the Mel- 
chisedek whom I have already named. 

Baothsdg Sudrju. Nearly all the Greek and Latin fathers held 
this place to be the same as Jerusalem. So Ps. 76: 2, [3]. ‘In 
Salem is his tabernacle.” Comp. Gen. 14:18. The 2odeiu, men- 
tioned in John 3: 23, was probably a different place from that 
which our text names ; if indeed Sahn i is meant by our author, to 
designate a place at all. Is it not rather an appellative? See the 
writer’s own interpretation, v. 2. 

“fegevg tov Geov tov vyicrov, Hebrew 75°>y >X> 5733, Gen. 
14:18. It’was common, among the ancients, for a king to be 
priest also; thus uniting the two highest honours among men, in 
his own person. The Jewish kings did not do thus, so long as 
the race of David was upon the throne; because the priesthood 
was confined to the tribe of Levi. But the Maccabees did it: 
Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 19, comp. Macc. in the Apocrypha. Among 
foreign nations, this was very common. In reference to this dou- 
ble honour, Peter calls Christians Baotdecoy isoatevuc, 1 Pet. 2: 9. 
and John, in Rev. 1: 6, says, that Christ has made for his follow- 
ers a Gaovdsiay, and constituted them iegeig rH Peo. 

How highly the Jews of the apostle’s day estimated the honour 
of priesthood, may be seen from Philo; who says, “The law of 
kingly office applies to priests eg oguvornta xal tyujy, in regard 
to dignity and honour, de Legat. ad Caium, p. 832.” In the same 
book, he represents the Jewish people as regarding “the high 
priesthood to be as much above the kingly office, as God is more 
exalted than men.” All this serves to shew, that the apostle, by 
exhibiting and proving the priesthood of Christ, not only pointed 
out the way in which pardon of sin had been effected, but also 


“f 


* 160 CO=MEST4EY OF EES. 7- I—>3- 


towards camsme the Meumb w be boooured_ m@ 

the 1 Helvews. > 

Is calles Melchisedck o priest of the mest kazh God. the 

Seriptare desazms te exhabat Imm 2: 2 true priest of the wae God. 
maker and bord of bezven znd earth. Gen Lt 19, 2 

‘oO peel... zedeyeeses ervey. whe wef Siveben r- 


¢ 


fem; see Gen. 14 17-2 

2° ze: dezergr .... ASscen, ts whem aise, Abrcken 
fare « tenth part of ofl via. 2 tenth exe certes res exe. 
of aff the spocls (see +. 4). winch be bad hem from the comieder- 
ate Kime: whom be bad Gocomited. Gea M: 1-16. Agee 

Ege 2srees wah ager understood 

Messen ads ignsvceineres, Sesitts dexssoncres, by 
ae eee a ace In feet. the 
semse pat apee Jesuizec drzesseeeac. im the tramsiatne. & the caly 
ewe thet cam be pet epee &: fo whet & a ee of rigitewesecss. 
mi any other seme? The phrase_ lime of 2 maton of people. ae of 
levimg bemes. we understand; bat whet 2 kms of a2 sisfrat e=- 
istence is, which belongs solely to menfal comecptma_ & woold be 





- @i&cak w understzad 
 * Fiucere 42 zeit Gesuizec - - .. cigevgc. and thea ke is Enz of 


3 "Azeres, exgres, harcez ucifder father mer mother, i & 
receded im the sacred sentalerse: =: of perhaps. wise Siber znd 
mother. were eet of kuesiy ramk. 9 These words were applied Ste 
‘pally, by the Greeks. to seme of their gods: then fcurstirely. 
these whe were orphans. and w these whose pares: were obscure 
aadoflewece=m Tisz Lay. IV.3. < nalle patre sxtas_* respect 
2 person of wmcbic deseemt. Se Horace. Sem 1 6 10, ~mel- 
x IS Bot mented m the seered records And m@ sack 
apestie appears to call Meichsedek euermg and e=t- 
eaplangime of these terms = tw be fend (gs coe wall 
casily believe), im the word cyevcelsparas. wutbrat amy Femealegy. 
viz_ of wise geaeaiogy no mentee E made mw Scrperre. 


< 


> 






COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3. 161 





The Arabians say, of a man who has by his own efforts procur- 
ed an exalted place of honour, and who is decended from ignoble 
parents, e) Lf U. he has no father, i. e. he is not named from his 
father, or derives not his titles and honours from his father. Michae- 
lis prefers the explanation which this idiom would afford, in respect 
to the passage under examination. But the other seems preferable, 
on account of the explanation which the writer himself has made, 
by adding, ayeveadoynros. See Schleusner and Wahl, on anarwe 
and @ujreg. 

Mijre coyny .... éyov, having neither beginning of days nor 
end of life, i. e. either, ‘ Whose time of birth or death is not relat- 
ed :’ or rather, ‘ Who, as high priest, has no limited time assigned 
for the commencement and expiration of his office :’ for so the fol- 
lowing clause leads us to interpret this expression. The Levitical 
priests were limited in their service; see Num. 4: 3, 25, 35, 43, 
47, (comp. Num. 8: 24, 25). Zee, according to the latter mode 
of interpretation, refers to the life of Melchisedek as priest, 1. e. 
the time of his priesthood. Zaz is often equivalent in sense ta 
HELQOS Cuz, the season or time which one lives. The meaning 
of the writer then is, that Melchisedek’s priesthood was limited to 
no definite time, i. e. he was sacerdos perpetuus, a priest without 
limitation of office. So the Latins say, Dictator perpetuus, etc. 

* Aqapormpévos 62... . Oenvents, being like to the Son of God, 
remaineth a priest perpetually. The sacred writer, in Ps. 110: 4, 
says of the Messiah, that he is Dti>> jm5, Sept. iegevs eis tov aé- 
Ova, i. q. 6S 10 dinvexés; and then ‘adds, “ after the order of Mel- 
chisedek.” First, then, Christ is stated by the Psalmist to be a 
perpetual priest ; and next, to confirm or explain this assertion, it 
is added, that he is so according to the order of Melchisedek. The 
implication is, of course, that Melchisedek is perpetual priest; for 
this is a special point of the comparison. The apostle means to 
say, in our text, that inasmuch as Melchisedek is understood to 
have a perpetual priesthood, and since the priesthood of the Son 
of God is affirmed, in the 110th Psalm, to be like his ; so it follows, 
course, that the priesthood of Christ is understood to be perpetual, 
or that Melchisedek in regard to his priesthood, was like to, or 
could be compared with, the Son of God. 

In respect to the object of this assertion, a apprehend nothing 

VOL. Il. 21 


162 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3. 





more is intended, than that the priesthood of Christ and of Mel- 
chisedek was not, like that of the sons of Aaron, limited to any 
definite period. In the absolute sense, e/g 10 dcyvexés clearly is not 
to be understood. Melchisedek’s priesthood terminated with his 
life ; so Christ’s priestly and kingly office both will cease, when 
the work of redemption is fully accomplished, 1 Cor. 15: 24—28. 
But in neither case is there any statute, which limits the specific 
time of accession to office, and of egress from it. Of course, the 
order of Christ’s priesthood, and that of Melchisedek, differed great- 
ly in this respect from that of the sons of Aaron, and was, as the 
writer goes on to declare, greatly superior to it. Dictator perpetuus 
among the Romans, for example, was surely a higher, or at least a 
more honorable office, than that of ordinary Dictator. 

Our English version of agouovmpevos, made like to, does not 
seem to give the true sense of the passage. The apostle is not 
labouring to shew that Melchisedek, in respect to his priesthood, 
was made like to Christ ; but vice versa. He is seeking to illus-— 
trate and establish the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood, by compar- 
ing it with the well known priesthood of Melchisedek. Hence, to 
say that Melchisedek was made like to the Sun of God, is a vore~ 
gov myortegov ; for Ps. 110: 4, compares the Son of God as priest, 
to Melchisedek. This too is the order of nature and propriety ; for 
the priesthood of Melchisedek preceded that of Christ; it was some- 
thing with which the Hebrews were already acquainted, inasmuch 
as their Scriptures had repeatedly spoken of it. Of course, the 
apostle, in aiming to illustrate and establish the priesthood of Christ, 
(a priesthood that was recent and not well understood by the He- 
brews), would very naturally pursue the method of comparison of- 
fered to his view in Ps. 110: 4, i. e. a comparison of Christ’s priest- 
hood to that of Melchisedek. *4gonovmmevog means, then, not 
made like to, but like to, possibly, likened to, i. e. being compar- 
ed ta. j 

The whole passage, from 0 ovvarryjoas in v. 1, to ro view rou 
Peov in v. 3, is plainly a parenthetic explanation, (a very common 
occurrence in the writings of Paul), thrown in for the sake of sug- 
gesting to the reader’s mind some considerations respecting the 
character and dignity of Melchisedek, which would be very useful, 
in regard to a right understanding of the comparison that was to be 
made out in the sequel. Ovzrog yao 0 MedyCedex, etc. in v. 1, is 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3, 4. 163 
eine dniliepccaiaie ie ihn Shes ee 
the immediate nominative to péver iegevs 8é¢ to Ounvexes, in v. 3. 
The construction of the whole sentence is thus; ‘This Melchise- 
dek, king of Salem, priest .... (who met Abraham .... and 
blessed him.... whose name means, first, righteous king, and 
secondly, peaceful king ....of a descent no where recorded, hav- 
ing a priestly office not limited, and being in respect to his priest- 
hood like to the Son of God), is a perpetual priest.’ If it be object- 
ed, that the participles éouevevouevos, eyo and AP OMOLWMEVOS 
have not, like ovvavt7jous, the article before them, and there- 
fore cannot be arranged in such a construction ; the answer is, 
that nouns, participles, and adjectives, put in apposition, either 
take or omit the article, at the pleasure of the writer. E. g. v. 1, 


6 Mehycoedéu—Baorkevs .... iggevg, in apposition. Then 0 ov- 
yavtnoas.... evhoynoas.... EQuevevomevos.... anarwe, aun- 
TMQ, ayEevechoyntos ... Eyav .. . apouovwmevos—all in apposition 


with 6 suvavrroag ; a mode of using adjectives and participles by 
no means unusual. See Gersdorf, Beitrage etc. Th. V. Ueber die 
Stellung der Adjectiven, etc. In the translation, I have, for the 
sake of perspicuity, broken up the involved construction of the 
original, and made several simple sentences. See Excursus XIII. 

4. @swoeire 02... . natoraoyns, consider now how great a per 
sonage this must be, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tithe of 
the spoils. Oemwgeite, see, perceive, consider. IInhixoc, of what 
exalted rank. ° AxgoGuvtwy, in its literal sense, means, swmmitas 
acervi frumenti, the top part of a heap of grain. It was usual to 
offer the primitiae or first fruits toGod. But as offerings were 
made to their gods, by the Greeks, from spoils taken in war, ax00- 
Sivva came at last to signify, in the Greek language, any kind of 
spoils, from which an offering for the gods was taken. The Latins. 
called such offerings, manubiae. The word axgodwiwy has the 
general sense of spoils here, and evidently refers to the spoils which 
Abraham had taken from the confederate kings, Gen. 14: 16. 

The object of the apostle, in mentioning the circumstance here 
adverted to, plainly is, to exalt the dignity of Melchisedek. ‘The 
high reverence which the Jews had for Abraham is well known. 
If now it could be shewn to the Hebrews, that Melchisedek was 
superior to Abraham, then the superiority of Christ, who is like to 
Melchisedek, is also shewn. Moreover, since the patriarch or head 
of a nation was reckoned, in the East, as excelling in dignity ali 


164 COMMENTARY ON HEB, 7: 4, 5. 


his descendants; so, if Melchisedek’s dignity exceeded that of 
Abraham, it would follow, that it exceeded that of all his descend- 
ants—-among whom were the Levitical priests. It is for the sake 
of establishing this last point, that the comparison of Melchisedek 
with Abraham is introduced in v. 4; as the sequel plainly shews. 
This being established, it would follow, that Christ’s priesthood, 
(which was like that of Vielchisedek), was superior to the Aaroni- 
cal priesthood ; which is the point that the writer designs to illus- 
trate and establish. 

5. Kai oi wév.... hauBavortes, moreover, the sons of Levi, 
who obtain the office of the priesthood, i.e. who are constituted 
priests. Al/ the sons of Levi were not properly priests; but only 
the descendants of Aaron. Hence, the writer adds, ry» iegarelay 
AauBavorres. It was true, indeed, that the whole tribe of Levi 
had a right to tithes; Num. 18: 28—30. Deut. 14: 22, 27-29, 
But it is not material to the writer’s object here, to mention this: 
He is concerned merely with the priests; who, as descendants of 
Levi, were of course entitled to tithes. If he could shew that the — 
priests, the most honoured part of the Levites, who were legally 
entitled to receive tithes from the other descendants of Abraham, 
were still inferior to Melchisedek ; then would he shew that the 
priesthood of Christ was of an order superior to theirs. The pay- 
ment of tithes is an acknowledgment of superiority, in regard to 
the rank of the person who receives them# If Abraham, then, paid 
tithes to Melchisedek, he acknowledged him as superior in respect 
to rank. 

*Evroljy éyouow.... vonoy, have, by the law, a commission to 
tithe the people. See the passages of the law, just referred to. 
Evroljy, direction, mandate, a precept that gives liberty or con- 
fers a right to do any thing. 

Tovr éotr.... ASouau, that is, their own brethren, although 
descendants from Abraham. °Eéehnlu@oras éx tig voguos, a He- 
braistic mode of expression ; e. g. Gen. 35: 11, kings ax) 99X21; 
Gen. 46: 26, 12797 (Nx5, Ex. 1: 5, et al. The Greeks used yevyao- 
ae UM T1908, in such cases. The meaning of the passage is, the 
priests of the tribe of Levi, although descended in common with 
the other tribes from Abraham, yet have been elevated to a rank 
above them, and receive the tribute of acknowledged elevation, in 
the tithes which are paid them by the others. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 5—7. 165 


But why should the elevation of the priests above their breth- 
ren, be introduced here? I answer, in order to shew that the 
most honoured part of the sons of Levi, the most honoured tribe, 
were of a rank inferior to Melchisedek ; consequently, their priest- 
hood was of an order inferior to that of Christ. 

6. ‘O 02 uy yeveadoyoumsvos 2 aura, but he whose descent is 
not reckoned from them; a periphrasis, by which Melchisedek is 
described, and, at the same time, additional intimation is given, 
that he was of an order of priests different from that of the Le- 
vites. 

Adexcrous .... evhoynue, tithed [received tithes from] Abra- 
ham, and blessed him to whom the promises were made. AOEnUTOKE 
is a Hellenistic word, being found only in the Septuagint and New 
‘Testament. The meaning is, that Melchisedek received from 
Abraham a tenth of the spoils; which was the same ratio with 
the tithes received by the Levitical priesthood. Kai rdv Zyovra ras 
énayythiag evAoynxe, a periphrasis designating Abraham, to whom 
God had made promises of great blessings; comp. Heb. 6: 12—165. 

7% Xwois 02 naong.... evdoyeirar, and beyond all controversy, 
the inferior was blessed by the superior. ° Avtidoyius, gainsaying, 
dispute, doubt, comp. 6:16: ”Hiarroy here means merely inferi- 
ority in point of rank, office, or station; not inferiority in regard to 
moral or religious character, which it is not the writer’s object to 
bring into view, as it is not to his present purpose. Melchisedek 
was both king and priest; Abraham was neither ; at least he is not 
called by either appellation. He was, indeed, an Emir, i.e. the 
head of a company of migratory shepherds (Nomades), and had a 
large number of dependants; as may be seen in Gen, 14: 14. 
Abraham is also called N33, prophet, Gen. 20: 7; but he is not 
called 7735, although he repeatedly offered sacrifices; nor do the 
Scriptures call him 757, king. 

Kogeitrovos is the antithesis or correlate of ¢arrov, and there- 
fore means, superior. Both adjectives are of the neuter gender, 
as is manifest from é,azroy; but this gender in adjectives is em- 
ployed to denote abstract quality, i. e. itvis used in the same way 
as abstract nouns ; which are very frequently employed, by the sa- 
cred writers, instead of concrete ones. E. g. Christ is the way, 
the truth, and life, i. e. he is the guide, the instructer, and the au- 
thor of life, to men. So here, the literal rendering would be, infe- 


7 


166 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 7, 8. 








riority ts blessed by superiority, i. e. the inferior person is blessed 
by the superior one. % 

The apostle takes this as a position which will be granted by 
the Hebrews, from the simple consideration, that Abraham, by pay- 
ing tithes to Melchisedek, of course acknowledged his own inferi- 
or rank. 

8. Kui ode uév ... AauSavovor, here, also, men receive tithes 
who die ; but there, one of whom it is testified that he lives Avery 
difficult verse, about which there has been no small controversy. 
The literal sense of the words would make nothing for the writer’s 
purpose. Of the natural life of men he is not speaking; but of 
the duration of the priestly office. "§2de means, in respect to the 
Levites; éxet, in regard to Melchisedek. *“Q0e and éxei may also 
be literally rendered, in this place, and, in that place; which gives 
the meaning just proposed. But what is axoSv7joxovres? Is it 
the natural death of the body? But, in this respect, the Levites differ- 
ed not from the king of Salem; both were mortals. In another 
world, too, they live as well as he, i.e. both are immortal also. 
Zr, therefore, cannot refer simply to living in another world. 
Nor is there any ground for supposing the apostle means to assert, 
that Melchisedek’s high priesthood continues in heaven; as some 
have imagined. There is no intimation in Scripture of any such 
thing, in regard to any one but Jesus. I must therefore under- 
stand ano@ynoxovres as being used figuratively here, in order to de- 
note the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood. 
The figurative use of O»7j6xm and anotyyoxw, in the New Testa- 
ment, is very common; although no instance occurs, perhaps, 
where it has the same shade of meaning, which it appears to have 
here. Schleusner, however, gives to Oyyoxw, in 1 Tim. 5: 6, the 
same sense; viz. qui officio suo non fungitur. But in the verse be- 
fore us, he construes ax0Ovynoxorres as meaning, mortales, and 
¢7 as applying to Christ, not to Melchisedek ;—most plainly against 
the context that follows. 

The word ¢7 seems to me, plainly, not to mean here, either 
natural life, or future immortality, but an enduring, unlimited time 
of priesthood ; and to designate the same idea as ever iggevs e/g tO 
Ounvexés, inv. 3. A sense like this, viz. that of duration, perenni- 
tas, the word ew often has. If this be correct, then its correlate, 
anodvnoxovres, must of course have the sense of, short lived, or, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 8—10. 167 
Chen erence tee Ee nner | ey 


deceasing, viz. as to office, or the priesthood. In this way, and in 
this only, can I make out any tolerable sense of the passage, con- 

-sistently with the context. Nothing can be plainer, than that the 
object of the writer is to shew the perpetuity of Melchisedek’s 
priesthood, and not that of his natwral life; and by consequence, 
he would also make out the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood. To 
eonstrue anodvyoxortes, then, as referring to physical mortality, 
and ¢7 as having respect to physical or natural life, is to quit the 
subject under the consideration of the writer, and resort to one 
which is altogether inapposite to his purpose. That Caw and C7, 
moreover, often denote perpetuity, perennitas, the reader may readi- 
ly see by consulting Wahl’s Lex. caw, no. 2. 8, and Cw, no. 1. y. 
The word anodyvjoxovtes, then, by the force of antithesis, de- 
notes the reverse of this; and perennity, here, is not ascribed to 
natural life, but to the priesthood. 

9. Kai, ws énog sinsiv.... dedexarmrar, yea, even Levi, who 
receives tithes, was (if I may be allowed the expression) himself 
tithed, through Abraham. ‘S8¢ émog éinéiy is very common, in the 
best Greek writers. It is a weiAcyua, softening down, of an expres- 
sion, which a writer supposes his readers may deem to be too 
strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. 
It amounts to an indirect apology, for employing an unusual or un- 
expected assertion or phrase. It is very happily introduced here ; 
as the subject itself is one which the writer did not intend to urge 
as capable of being scanned with metaphysical exactness, but only 
as bearing a popular mode of explanation. 

Kai, verily, truly, imo, vero, profecto; see Wahl, Lex. xaé, 2. 
b. 8. Brettschneider, Lex. xat. 5. 6. ee 

10. "Ere yao év ty oogui.... Medyrosd&e, for he was then in 
the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. ” Ete, etiam nunc, — 
even now, already, or, etiam tunc, even then, then. The meaning of 
the writer is, that at the time then present, viz. when Melchisedek 
met Abraham, Levi was éy ry dogui tov mateos. Our English 
version, ‘‘ He was yet in the loins of his father,” gives a sense quite 
different from that of the writer; for the meaning of this must be, 
‘ he was yet to be begotten,’ i.e. he was not yet born. But the 
apostle designs to say, and it is appropriate to his object to say, 
that even then, when Melchisedek met Abraham, Levi already (in 
a certain sense) existed, and, through Abraham, paid tithes to the 


168 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 10, 11. 


king of Silent i.e. acknowledged inferiority compared with him. 
This is the very point, which the writer is labouring to illustrate. 
See Excursus XIV. 

Il. He pév oby redzimorg .... av, further, if perfection were 
[attainable] by the Levitical priesthood. Mév ovbv, or mevoovr, 
moreover, further. Mév otv are often used as a continuative par- 
ticle, merely indicating that the writer is advancing to another to- 
pic or paragraph. Ov» is illative, in a general way; but when 
joined with wéy, it should not, usually, be separately translated. 
That a new topic is begun here, will be plain to every considerate 
reader. 

Tehsiwoug, a word very variously understood and translated. 
Some render it, accomplishment, viz. of the design of the priest- 
hood ; others, sanctification; others, consummate happiness ; oth- 
ers, moral rectitude or perfection. It is best explained by a refer- 
ence to corresponding passages in the sequel. In 9:9, it is said, 
that ‘the Levitical sacrifices could not redecosooe the person who 
offered them ;’ which (if we compare 9: 14) appears plainly to 
mean, ‘ to take away the burden of guilt, and to render pure or holy 
the minds of worshippers.’ Again, in 10: 1, it is affirmed of the 
sacrifices, that ‘they could not redecmoae those who approached 
the altar,’ i. e. those who offered them ; and by comparing 10: 2— 
4 with this, it is plain the writer means to say, that ‘the sacrifices 
could not bestow peace of conscience—could not take away the 
burden of sin from the mind of the worshipper; but they left him 
filled with apprehensions, that the penalty of the divine law might 
still be executed upon him.’ Here then is plainly the redeiwoce, 
which the Levitical priesthood could not effect. It could neither 
purify the mind or soul of the worshipper, nor free him from the 
burden of his sins, or from the apprehension that they might be pun- 
ished. Christ did both ;.and this is the redsiwoug here spoken of, 
which he accomplished, and which the law could not accomplish. 
Chap. 10: 3, 14, is very direct to this purpose. The writer, then, 
has explained téAsiwous, by the sequel of his epistle ; and ina man- 
ner altogether accordant with the object of his reasoning here. 

‘O aos yao ex’ avry vevouodernro, (for the people received 
the law in connexion with this). This circumstance is evidently 
to be placed in a parenthesis. Nevouoternro, were subjected to 
the law, were put under the law. Such aconstruction in the pas- 








“ COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 11—12. 169 


a 


sive voice is peculiar; comp. Rom. 3:4. Zn ary, on this con- 
* dition, connected with this, or, under these circumstances ; comp. 
Wahl on éni, If. 4. b. The meaning is, that the Levitical priest- 
hood and the Mosaic law are closely and inseparably linked togeth- 
er, so that if one is changed, the other must of necessity be; as 
the writer proceeds to shew in the sequel. 

Tis ee yotia.... h&yeoOut, what need was there, any more, 
that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and 
not be called after the order of Aaron. That is, ‘if the Levitical 
priesthood, and the law connected with it, accomplished all, in re- 
spect to purification from sin and the giving of quiet to the con- 
science, which was needed, then why should the Psalmist speak of 
a priest, who was of an order different from that of Aaron, and who 
was yet to arise?’ This would be unnecessary, if the priesthood of 
Aaron were adequate to the great purposes of salvation. "£xe, any 
more, any longer. 

12. MevariOemevys yao .... yiverat, but in case the priesthood 
is changed, there must necds be also a change of the law. Mera- 
tiOyue means, to transfer, to translate. This sense corresponds 
sufficiently well with the intention of the writer, whose design is to 
shew, that the priesthood of the ancient dispensation had been 
transferred to Christ, although on conditions very different from 
those formerly attached to it; and that Christ not only was a priest 
in fact, but that his priesthood, coming in the place of the other 
ancient priesthood, superseded it. NNouov here means, the Jewish 
dispensation, the Mosaic law. The change spoken of in respect 
to this, has reference to the fact, that all its ritual observances and 
its priesthood, (which were inseparably connected); must be laid 
aside together, under the new dispensation. As Christ’s priest- 
hood differed from that of the Levites, so must the law, by which it 
is regulated, differ from that which regulated the Aaronical priest- 
hood. 

This conclusion is in itself so obvious, that the writer does not 
deem it necessary to produce any formal arguments here to esta- 
blish it. He proceeds to shew, that the priesthood itself is chang- 
ed, by adducing facts and declarations recorded in the Old Tes- 
tament. (1) Christ sprang from the tribe of Judah, vs. 13, 14. 
(2) He was to be a priest of the order of Melchisedek, vs. 15—17. 


VOL. I. 29 


a a 
‘ > 
te” a ib sel 
170 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 12—16. -" 





Consequently, the law, which was necessarily connected with the — 
Levitical priesthood, must also be changed. . 

13. “Ep ov yao.... Puovorngim, now he, concerning whom 
these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom ser- 
ved at the altar. Teg here connects the illustration or proof, with 
the proposition in v. 12. It may, however, be translated, but, 
with nearly the same effect. The reasoning then would stand thus, 
‘If the priesthood be changed, the law must also be changed; but 
the priesthood is changed, [i. e. Christ, who is appointed to the 
priesthood, sprung from the tribe of Judah]; therefore, the law is 
laid aside ; comp. v. 18. and seq. 

TIooo¢oynxe. ITyooeyw means, to give heed, to apply the mind 
to, tov vour being understood ; also, to give one’s care to, to serve. 

14. Tloodnhov yao .... éhadnos, for it is quite manifest, that 
our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses said 
nothing concerning the priesthood, i. e. he gave the priest’s office to 
the sons of Levi, Num. 18: 6, and noi to the tribe of Judah. The 
reader is left to supply, at the end of the verse, the conclusion of 
the syllogism, (which Paul very frequently omits), viz. ustatiderae 
ovv H tegwovry, consequently the priesthood is changed ; i.e. since 
Christ is high priest, who was of the tribe of Judah, it follows, of 
course, that there must be a change in the priesthood; for none 
but Levites, under the ancient dispensation, could be priests. 

15. Kai aegeooorsgor ete... . Eregog, and still more evident 
ts tt, [viz. that the priesthood must be changed], if another priest 
has arisen, like tv Melchisedek. Between dyhov, ag0dnhov, and xa- 
tadyor, there is no important difference of signification. The 
two latter seem naturally to render the word somewhat more inten- 
sive. “Avioraraé, is risen up, viz. the high priest in question, has 
already arisen or made his appearance, ?s already extant. 

Ka? ouoornta, according to the likeness, in the similitude, 
i. e. like, resembling ; ina sense like that of xara rater, ind: 6, 10. 
6: 20. 7: 11, Hebrew, 7.227 22, Ps. 110: 4. Comp. ag wpormue— 
vos in 7: 3. ; 

16. “Os ov xara vouorv .... axaradvrou, who was not made [a 
priest] by an ordinance of temporary obligation, but by an authority 
of endless duration ; i. e. he was not made a priest, under the Mo- 
saic law which was to be set aside, vs. 12, 18 seq.; but by the 
oath of God, which is immutable, comp. vs. 20—24 and 28. 


ae COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 16, 17. 171 
ae Ei bit ele A en ee 

Saoxrxns, fleshly; hence, secondarily, frail, infirm, short lived, 

t. temporary, quicquid caducum. So ake Hebrew sa, Gen. 6: 3. 
Ps. 56: 5. 78:39. Job 10: 4. Is. 31:5; comp. also. aoveves and 
avgehes in v. 18. “Evrodng means here, the precept or command 
respecting the appointment of priests, contained in the voos, i. e. 
Mosaic law. “Eyvtodqjs owoxexyg is, then, preceptum caducum, a 
temporary command, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature. 
So vs. 12 and 18 require us to interpret the passage. 

Advawty, authority, authoritative appointment. So Acts 4:7 
év mole duvawer; by what authority? see also 1 Cor. 5: 4. Zw7e, 
perennitas, perpetuity; see on V. 8. above. "Axaradurov, quod 
destrui nequit, indissoluble, hence, immutable, imperishable, perpet- 
ual As it is the antithesis of cwoxex7¢, the meaning of ouoxixns 
must be that which is given above. 

_ That this interpretation of the whole verse is well grounded, 
follows plainly from the succeeding verse, (v. 17), which is addu- 
ced simply to prove the perpetutt y of Christ’s priesthood. 

17. Maorvosi yao, viz. 7 yougn, OF TO mrvEvpee 70 aytov. The 
nominative, in such cases, would of course be supplied by the rea- 
ders of the epistle. In the writings of the Mishnical doctors, the 
usual mode of appeal to the Scriptures is, q2NzW, 1. e. quod dicitur, 
or, Aéyetae yag, waotugsitae. The writer makes the appeal to 
Scripture, in this case; to confirm and enforce what he had just 
asserted. 

The conclusion is now left, for the reader to supply. Inv. 1, 
the writer had said, that the Levitical priesthood, and the system 
of law under which the people of Israel had been placed, were con- 
nected together. In v. 12, he intimates that the connexion was so 
intimate, that whatever affected one would affect the other; and 
consequently, that if the priesthood be changed, the law itself must 
be. ‘But the priesthood is changed,’ is the next proposition which 
he establishes, vs. 13—17. It follows, therefore, (and this is the 
conclusion which the reader is now to supply), that the law is also 
changed. 

The writer proceeds to give another reason why the ancient 
law must be repealed, or rather be superseded. One reason just 
given above is, that the priesthood is changed, which demands a 
corresponding change of the law. Another reason now to be giv- 


rg 


172 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 17—19. 





en, is the inefficacy of the whole legal institution, in respect to 
spiritual pardon and sanctification. 

18. “Adeenows wév yoo... avwgedes, There is, moreover, a 
setting aside of the preceding law, because it was inefficient and un- 
availing. Mév yao, continuative (as often), further, also, moreo- 
ver, besides; the transition being made to another argument, and 
fév yao shewing that the subject is continued, and something more 
added to it. “4dernoug, rejection, setting aside, abrogation; a 
stronger word than evaddayy. ITgouyouons, literally preceding, 
i.e. going before the Christian dispensation, i. q. the ancient law. 
*Aodevig nai avwgedres are words of nearly the same import here. 
" Aovevés is said of that which has not power to accomplish any 
particular end proposed; and aywgede¢ is said of that, which proves 
to be neither useful nor availing, for the purpose to which it has 
been applied. The meaning here is, that the ancient law, with all 
its ritual, had proved to be altogether incompetent to effect the reA- 
gimovg mentioned in v. 11th, i. e. the purification of the sinner, 
and that peace of conscience which is inspired by the well ground- 
ed hope of pardon for sin; comp. v. 19. and 9:9, 14. 10: 1--4.. 
The two words oo@eves and evwgyedes increase the intensity of 
the affirmation. ‘The epithet OwaxLnns, in v. 16, is of a similar na- 
ture. 

19. Ovdév yao éceheimoev 0 vowos, for the law perfected noth- 
ing. Ouvdév, neuter gender, is used here for ovdéva masculine, i. e. 
no one; just as to éhurtzov, in v. 2, means the superior person, i. e. 
Melchisedek. 70 may and savta are respeatedly used, by John, 
for nag and nayreg; and soof other adjectives. *“#rele/wos means, 
did not effect a treheiwoug, did not purify and pacify the con- 
sciences and minds of sinners. We have no one English. word, 
which corresponds at-all with the force of the Greek original; and 
we must therefore content ourselves, either with a kind of literal ren- 
dering of it, or with a periphrasis, leaving the explanation for notes. 

“Enevoaywyn 0&....t@ Gem, but the introduction of a better 
hope [does]. °£redelwoe is implied after édnidog, by the laws of 
graminar. The introduction of a better hope does perfect men, i.e. 
it inspires them with well grounded hope.of pardon, and < purifies 
their consciences from dead works, so that they may serve the liv- 
ing God, 9: 14.” "Exsvouywyn, superinduction, is said of one 
thing which is introduced in the place of another ;.e. g. in this 





, i 
“ee es 


il COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 19-—21. 1738 





case, of the gospel, which was superinduced upon the Mosaic law. 

‘Ehnis zosittw@y means, a better source or ground of hope, viz. the 
gospel was a better ground of hope to the sinner than the law. uv 
ng, by which, by means of which, through which, i.e. in the way 
disclosed by the gospel, éyyiSouev rm Dem, we draw nigh to God, 
we have access to God. Under the ancient law, the high priest 
only entered the holy of holies, to procure pardon for the people. 
Under the gospel, the way is opened by Jesus, for all penitent sin- 
ners to “come boldly to the throne of grace,” 4: 16, in order to 
obtain the blessings which they need. “Ayyigm is frequently con- 
strued with the dative, in Hellenistic Greek ; see Winer’s Gram. § 
24. 4. Sept. Gen. 27: 21. Ex. 19: 22. 

20. Kei xad ooov ov ywois voxwmootas, further, since not 
without an oath, supply iegevg yéyovev /noovg from the latter part 
of the following phrase, which is the antithesis of this. Aa? door, 
in this case, refers to xara tosovroy in v. 22; and the intervening 
phrases are added by the writer, only by way of explanation and 
comparison. It is difficult, if not impossible, to give the exact 
features of the original here, in any copy. The argument of the 
writer stands thus; ‘ The gospel is a better source of hope; for, as 
much (xa9 Ooov) as the appointment of a priest, by an oath, ex- 
ceeds, in solemnity and importance, an arrangement to take the of- 
fice merely by descent, so much (xara rocovror, v. 22) does the 
new covenant, of which Jesus is the sponsor, exceed the old.’ ‘Qg- 
xwaoole does not differ in meaning from ooxo0g, unless it be, that 
the former applies rather to the act of taking an oath, being deriv- 
ed from Ggxog and ourupe. 

21. Oi uév ... yeyovores, for they, i. e. the Levites, became priests 
without an oath. Mév yao, often means, indeed, in fact, verily ; 
but here éy is only the sign of protasis. The Levites were priests 
in consequence of being the descendants of Aaron; Jesus became 
a priest only by special appointment, sanctioned by an oath; as 
follows. 

“O 68 usta dguomooias ... Medyzitedéx, but he [Jesus, became 
a priest] with an oath, by him who said to him, “ The Lord hath 
sworn, and will not repent ; Thou art a priest Sor ever, of the order 
of Melchisedek, Ps. 110: 4.” Meropednonosrar signifies, to re- 


? zi . 
gret, to alter one’s mind or purpose through regret; and simply, to 
change or alter one’s purpose. 


% 


ct. 


174 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: Q99—24. 


22. Kara rooouroy .... /yoovg, Jesus is the surety of a cov 
enant so much the better. On xara rocovtor, see above. Arad - 
“ny (m3) means, covenant, promise, disposition, arrangement, tes- 
tament; consequently, when applied to the ancient Jewish law, 
or to Christianity, it means dispensation, economy. Kgeitrrovos 
means, better than the ancient dca07xy ; i.e. the hope inspired by 
the new dvaO7x7 is as much better than the ancient daz could 
inspire, as the new dvat7jxn is superior to the old. "Eyyvog, spon- 
sor, pledge, surety. Many critics have supposed, that this word is 
chosen here, on account of its likeness to éyyiouey in the 19th 
verse ; so that it constitutes a kind of magovouaota with it. How- 
ever this may be, the word is altogether appropriate to the writer’s 
purpose. He had spoken of a better hope, inv. 19. It was natural 
to ask, What is the ground or security, that this hope would be re- 
alized? his is answered by the assurance, that Jesus is éyyvog 
for the dispensation which supports it. 

The writer now proceeds to add another reason, why the Le- 
vitical priesthood must be considered as far inferior to that of Je- 
sus. As men in a frail and dying state are constituted priests, un- 
der the Levitical law, the consequence is, that the priesthood is lia- 
ble to continual change, and must necessarily pass from the hands 
of one to another, in a short time. Not so, in the case of Christ ; 
who, being exalted above the heavens, and constituted high priest 
in the temple not made with hands, hath an immutable priesthood, 
subject to no succession. 

23. Kai of wév mheioves .... wmagameverv, again, those priests, 
viz. descendants of Aaron, wre many, since by reason of death they 
cannot be permanent. TTisioveg refers to numbers constituted by 
repeated succession ; not to the number of priests existing at any 
one time. @dvearw is put in the dative, as signifying the means. 
The writer doubtless intends, that the comparison here shall be re- 
ferred to the high priest’s office in particular ; for he is all along 
considering Jesus as agyvegevs. The number of priests, in gener- 
al, is stated by Josephus to have been 1500. Contra Apion. I. 
22. 





24. “O 02, dua t0 péverv ... . iggwovrny, but he, because he con- 
tinues [a priest] forever, has a priesthood without succession. That 
pévevv here refers to priesthood, and not to simple duration of life, 
seems to me quite clear, from comparing vs. 3 (ad finem), 17, and 


; ss 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 24, 25. 175 


« 


21. The very object of the writer is, to shew the difference be- 
tween the order of Christ’s priesthood and that of the Levites. To 
say that Christ lives forever, in the world above, is to say no more 
than what is equally true of the sons of Aaron, who surely are im- 
mortal beings. But to say that he continues a perpetual priest, and 
that his office is therefore subject to no transfer and succession 
like theirs, is saying what is altogether adapted to the writer’s pur- 
pose, and perfectly accords with the assertions in the verses to 
which a reference has just been made. The reasoning stands 
thus. Jehovah has, by an oath, constituted the Messiah isoea 
ei¢ tov atwrva; and because he is thus constituted perpetual 
priest, his priesthood has not, like that of Aaron, any succession in 
office. 





’ AnaoaBaroy is altogether an appropriate word here, and more 
significant than adwytov or arédevtov would be. The writer had 
just said, ‘ The Levitical priesthood admits or demands many (mAei- 
ovec) priests in succession, because death is continually removing 
them from office.’ On the contrary, Christ being appointed to a 
perpetual priesthood, his office is here declared to be anagaPatos, 
i. e. it demands or admits no transition to another, no successor 
in his place. JZaoooaivw means, to pass over, to pass on; and 
when spoken of an office, it signifies, fo pass into the hands of an- 
other person. °~AnagaParos is, therefore, incapable of transition ; 
which is the very shade of meaning, that the writer’s argument de- 
mands. So Theophylact and Oecumenius; anugafator, advado- 
you, without succession. 

25. “Oder nai owlery .... Sew, hence, also, he is able always 
to save those, who draw nigh to God through him, i. e. approach the 
throne of grace (4: 16) in his name, or on his account, trusting in 
him as their priest and intercessor. “Odev, whence, i. e. because 
he is a perpetual priest. 2wsvv, to save, means here, to deliver 
from condemnation and punishment. This the high priest did, in 
regard to God’s external government over the Jews, when he went 
into the most holy place, and made expiation for the sins of the 
people. Christ, as a priest in the heavenly world, is able to do 
this ; and to do it eé¢ ro mavredes, unceasingly, always, so long as 
there are any who need pardon, and who can obtain it. 

Tlaviore Sav, ever living, i. e. always abiding or continuing a 
priest ; comp. vs. 3,8, 17, 21,24. Zaw, to live, to endure, to be 


, * 


176 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7:25. 








perennial ; as frequently before. The mere continual existence of 
Christ is not at all the question here, but the perpetuity of his 
priesthood ; so that fa» plainly refers to his ever living or contin- 
uing as a priest; in which capacity évrvyyover Unée Huov, as fol- 
lows. 

Eig v0 évrvyyavew inég avror, to intercede for them, or rather 
to interpose in their behalf. The proper meaning of évrvyyavo is, 
to go to any one, to approach him, to meet him, for the sake of ac- 
cusing, defending, convicting, or delivering any person, or of trans- 
acting any business which has respect to him. Here, it is plainly 
in the sense of aiding, defending or delivering; as the preceding 
owery clearly indicates. It means here, also, to do something, or 
to interpose, in such a way as is appropriate to the priest’s office. 
But ¢o intercede, in the sense of making supplication, is not appro- 
priate to any part of the priests’ office under the Levitical law ; at 
least, not to any which the Scriptures have presented to our view. 
The reader will search in vain for any direction to the priests, un- 
der the Jewish economy, to-perform such a duty as priests ; and all 
the testimony we have to shew us that the priests did make inter- 
cession, is what Philo says of their duties, Legat. ad Caium. II. 
77. p. SOL. (edit. Mangey); see on v. 27. Even the passage in 
Luke 1: 9, 10, seems to indicate nothing that solves the question. 
We must therefore understand éyrvyyaver here, in a more general 
sense, and refer it to any aid, which Christ as high priest extends 
to those who approach God, confiding in him, 4: 16. He is able 
owlsey avrovs, because he is a perpetual priest éyrvyyavery Unéo 
avtav, i.e. to interpose in their behalf, to procure for them such ad 
as they may need. ‘So the priests, under the Levitical dispensa- 
tion, were the internuntii between God and the people, and procur- 
ed blessings for-them, not only by presenting the offerings which 
they brought, but by inquiring of the Lord for them, or consulting 
his holy oracle, I acquiesce, therefore, in the general idea of é- 
ruyyavery here, viz. interposing in our behalf, assisting ; and I be- 
lieve, that all attempts to draw from the word any thing more than 
this, is substituting imagination for well grounded reasoning. 


, . & 


7 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 26. 17% 





The writer, having now commented on the priesthood of Christ as compared with that of 
Melchisedek, and having also made some deductions from the nature of Christ’s priestly office 
as thus exhibited, which are much to his purpose, resumes the subject which he had drop- 
ped at 5: 10, and which he had first proposed in5: 2,3. In 5: 7—9 he had shewn the similari- 
ty between Christ and the Jewish priests, in regard to the power of sympathizing with the suf- 


fering, inasmuch as both he and they were sufferers themselves. But he did not intend that the 


2o9#veve of the Jewish priests should be predicated of Jesus, in al/ respects. To guard against 
this, our author again introduces the topic here, and shows how far superior the priest of the 
new covenant is, in a moral respect, to the priests of the old. 


26. Tovovr0g yao iuiv émoenev aoylegevs, moreover, such a 
high priest was needful for us. Ign signifies, ordinarily, that 
which is becoming, proper, fit. But here égene seems plainly 
to be equivalent to ro avayzaiov; as in Matt. 3:15. So Luther, 
sollten wir haben, we must have. So Ernesti, Calovius. 

“Oovos, holy, not merely wisp here, but px, TEN, DN; 
for moral, internal holiness or purity of nature is intended. ” Ano- 
x0¢, harmless, qui malum non fecit, whose external conduct towards 
others corresponds with internal dovorys. 

"Auiavrog, undefiled, has reference to the ceremonial purity 
which was peculiarly required of the Jewish high priests. " Aulavtos 
has here, however, a moral sense, and expresses, summarily and 
with intensity, the ideas conveyed by dovog and exanos. Keywouo- 
név0g and THY auaorwhar, separated from sinners, i. e. removed 
from all that could contaminate or render impure; diverse from 
sinners; unlike to them. It is nearly synonymous in its meaning 
with @uievros, and is added, (as is usual in such cases with the 
sacred writers), for the sake of intensity. 

“Ywrdoreeos TOV ovoavury yevouevos, exalted above the heavens, 
j. e. seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, 1: 3. Comp. 
Phil. 2:9. Colos. 1: 18. Heb. 2:9. 8:1. Rev. 5:12. Matt. 25: 31. 

By these assertions, the writer designs to shew his Hebrew rea- 
ders, that Christ was, in all personal respects, exalted above the 
Jewish high priests. They were ‘compassed with infirmities,” but 
he was spotless; if they were ceremonially undefiled, he was moral- 
ly so; if they were placed in an exalted station, he was infinitely 
above them, being, like Melchisedek, king as well as priest, inas- 
much as he was raised to the throne of God above the heavens, 1: 
3. To finish the comparison, he goes on to say, that, in conse- 
quence of his perfect purity, he needed no expiatory offering for 
himself, as the Jewish high priest did. 

VOL. Il. ‘) 23 


e * 


- » 


178 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 27, 28. 





27. "Oc oun eyet.... haov, who has not, like the high priests, . 
any daily necessity of offering sacrifices, first for his own sins, and 
then for those of the people. Many doubts have been raised by cri- 
tics, about the meaning of xa sugoay here, because they have 
supposed that the high priest officiated in person, only on the great 
day of atonement. But that these doubts are without any good 
ground, may be seen by consulting Lev. 6: 19—22. Num. 28:3, 4. 
Philo, who was cotemporary with the apostles, says, agyvegevs, xa- 
TA TOUS vOMoUS, évyas dé nai Dvoiag Tehov 209 EXKOTHY NuLouy, 
the high priest, agreeably to the laws, makes daily supplications and 
sacrifices, see on v. 25. It happens in this case, as in all others of 
a like nature which occur in our epistle, that the deep and accurate 
knowledge of the writer, in respect to every thing which concerned 
the Jewish dispensation, becomes apparent, just in proportion to 
our knowledge of the usages which really existed under that dis- 
pensation. 

Tovro yao ....avevéynas, for this he did, once for all, when he 
offered up himself. ° Avagege is like the Heb. m2. ITooog<ou 
is also used in a similar sense. i" 

"Eqanaé, lit. for once, einmal; but according to usage, it de- 
nies a repetition of the act or thing to which it relates, and so means 
once for all. 

28. “O vouos yao... . aodeveray, now the law constitutes men 
high priests, who have infirmity. Iwo may here mean truly, in- 
deed; but the connexion is better kept up by the version which I 
have given it. 

"Eyovras aoOeverav here means, those who have infirmity of a 
moral nature, i. e. who commit sin, who are sinners; so also in 
verse 2. ' 

‘O hoyos 02 Conmpociag .... reredecmuevor, but the word of the 
oath, which was subsequent to the law, [constitutes as, high priest] 
the Son, who is forever exalted to glory. “O hoyos tng Ogumpooias 
is the same as Ogxo¢, or ogxmpoola in verse 20. The writer refers 
to Ps. 110: 4. The word of the oath, i. q. the oath that was uttered. 

Yiov sic tov aiove retehevmpévoy. On tedscow, see 2: 10, re- 
Aeuwoav. I regard the expression as designed here to convey, for 
substance, the idea of a state of the highest perfection and exalta- 
tion, which forbids the supposition that he can have such aoPeveray 
as the Jewish priests. 





% 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 1. 179 
CHAP. VIII. 


1. Kegahavov 02 éni toig Aeyouevorg, the most important thing, 
however, in regard to what we are now treating of, is. That xepa- 
Aacoy has such a meaning as is here assigned to it, is beyond any 
reasonable doubt. So Suidas, referring to this passage, says, 
Keqahacor, éxet, 16 wéyeortorv. So Theophylact, on this verse, 
iva éinw TO wsyroroy xai ouvextexwteoov, that I may say the 
greatest thing and the most comprehensive. So Theodoret under- 
stood xeqadacov; for he says, tyy weyiorny tony tehevtaiar 
wxatélime, he reserved the greatest honour until the last. So Philo, 
10 xeqahacoy tay avdowy twy moksucorwy, the head of the war- 
riors. So the classic authors also, as may be seen in Schneider, 
and in any good Greek Lexicon ; to which may be added, many of 
the most distinguished among late critics on our epistle, such as 
Zachariae, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Storr, Dindorf, Schulz, Iaspis, 
and others. The context, also, renders it quite plain, that such 
must be the meaning, and that xeqa@dacoy does not here mean, sum, 
or summary, in the sense of recapitulation or contents ; for what 
follows is no recapitulation of what precedes, but a new topic, ex- 
hibiting a different attitude or view of Christ’s priesthood. In the 
preceding chapter, the apostle has treated of the superiority of 
Christ’s priesthood, in respect to duration and succession. He has 
shewn, also, that Christ was made priest by the solemnity of an 
oath, while the Levites were not introduced to their office by such 
a solemnity. The priesthood of the latter was liable to continual 
interruption and vicissitude, from the frail and dying state of those 
who were invested with the office of priest ; while the perpetuity of 
Christ’s priestly office, was never exposed to interruption from cau- 
ses of this nature. Finally, the Jewish priests were themselves 
not only peccable but peccant men, and needed to offer sacrifices 
on their own account, as well as for the sake of others; while 
Christ was holy, and perfectly free from all sin, and exalted to a 
glorious state in which he was placed forever beyond the reach of 
it, so that his sacrifice would enure solely to the benefit of sinful 
men. 

Thus much the writer has already said, respecting the nature of 
the office conferred on Christ, and his qualifications to discharge the 


‘ 
A . 


130 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 1, 2. 





duties of it. He now comes, in chap. v111—x., to the consideration 
of the duties themselves, viz. the nature of the sacrifice which Je- 
sus offers ; the place where it is offered; the efficacy which it has 
to atone for sin; and the difference, in regard to all these points, 
between the sacrifice offered by Christ, and that which was pre- 
sented by the Jewish priests. This topic, then, differs from those 
which were discussed in chap. vn. Kegadavoy, therefore, does not 
mean recapitulation here, although there can be no doubt, that the 
word itself is capable of conveying such a sense, if the nature of 
the case demanded it. 

Moreover, from the circumstances just presented it is evident, 
that what follows is the xsgadacov, principal thing, which belongs 
to the topic of the writer. The dignity of an office, and the parti- 
cular qualifications of the person who is to be invested with it, are 
things which in their own nature are subordinate to the great end 
which is to be accomplished by the office itself. They are only 
subordinate means of bringing about the end of the office ; while 
this end or design itself must, from its own nature, be regarded as 
the principal thing, xeqahasov. 

"Eni coig heyouevors, in respect to etc. That én? often has this 
sense, may be seen in the lexicons. Aeyoutvocs, pres. part. pas- 
sive, means, the subjects now spoken upon or discussed. Tovourov 
aoyvegea, such a priest, viz. as had been described in the preced- 
ing chapter ; see 7: 26. 

“Os &ueateosn év deka x. tr. 2., see on 1: 3 ult. It is quite pos- 
sible, that the writer, in using éxa@voe here, may intend tacitly to 
: Bertrodnce a comparison between Christ as a priest, performing the 
duties of his office, seated ona throne of majesty, and the high 
priest of the Jews, who, in the discharge of all the duties of his 
function, stood before the Lord. But I do not think the point clear 
enough to be insisted on. ‘Thts much is clear, viz. that the wri- 
ter means to shew the very great difference between Christ and the 

Jewish high priest, by adverting to the fact, that the one is seated 

on the throne of God in the heavens, while the other only ministers 

on earth, in a temple reared by the hands of men. This last idea 
he proceeds more fully to develope, in verse 

2. Twv ayiny heeroveyos, a minister of the sanctuary, i.e. of 
the adytum, sanctum sanctorum, Wp ss in other words, the high 
priest of the temple above, having access to wy, the holy or 


“ 


¥ 


v 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 2, 3. 181 


Pe OAT DE elie. sass i ae SE EIB 
most holy place. “Ayiwy may also mean, of holy things, i. e. ayiav 
cAnduvey, of the truly sacred or holy things in heaven. But I 
prefer the former sense ; as the comparison thus becomes more di- 
rect with the Jewish high priest. -Aesroveyog means, a public 
minister, qui publicis officits praeest, vel, munera publica praestat. 
Says Ulpian, the Scholiast upon Demosth, contra Septin., Aei7 0 », 
Exadouy of nadavol t0 Onuossov, what was public, the ancients called 
Asirov. The ending -ovgyog comes from the verb éggyeev, opero, 
officio fungor. 

Kai rg oxnvng tag adn duvys, the true tabernacle, means, that 
which is spiritual, immutable, and eternal in the heavens; and 
which therefore is called true or real, in distinction from the earth- 
ly tabernacle that was made by the hands of men, and was of ma- 
terials earthly and perishable. The tabernacle in heaven is the 
substance ; that on earth, the image or type. Hence the former is, 
by way of distinction, properly named a@AyOuv7¢, i. e. real, or that 
which truly and permanently exists. 

What is intimated by this appellation, is now more fully express- 
ed. “Hy énykev 0 xvgvos, xai ove avdewnos, which the Lord con- 
structed or reared, and not man; i.e. the true or heavenly taberna- 
cle, is not material, was not formed by human architects, but rear- 
ed by the immediate power of God. Whether the writer means 
here to speak of an actual heavenly structure, having physical form 
and location, is a question which will be brought up by v. 5. be- 
low. 

3. Ilas yao aozeegevs . - xadiorarae, now every high ors 
is appointed to present Wiations and sacrifices; i.e. it enters: into 
the very nature of such an office, that duties of this kind must = 
performed by him who sustains it ; see the original proposition of 
this subject, in 5: 1. Aga, oblations or gifts that were without 
blood ; such as the first fruits of grain, vegetables, etc. Guolas, an- 
imals slain for sacrifice. Both were presented to God by the priest, 
who acted as the internuntius between Jehovah and the offerer. 

“Oder avayzaiov.... mgosevéyxn, whence, it is necessary that 
this [high priest] also have some offering to present; i.e. if Christ 
be high priest, and ifsuch an office is necessarily connected with 
the duty of presenting some offering ; then Christ, of course, must 
present one. What the oblation made by Christ is, he tells us more 
fully, in chap. 9: 11—14, 25, 26. 


‘ ° 4 " . a 


182 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 4, 5. 





4, The apostle proceeds to shew the reason, why Christ is a 
priest in the tabernacle above, and not in that on the earth. é 
fev yao ‘tg Ae dwoa., but if he were on earth, then he could not be 
a priest, because there are priests appointed by law who present obla- 
tions according to the law. The argument is thus; ‘The Scrip- 
ture calls Christ, isgevg eé¢ tov aiwva; but this he could not be 
on earth, inasmuch as there are already éegeig there, by divine ap- 
pointment; consequently, he is éegevg¢ in the temple above, and 
must present his offering there. oa means here oblations of 
every kind, comprehending the same things as dwoa te xo Pvolas 
in v. 3. 

5. Oirweg Unodelyuate ... . Exoveaviwy, the same who perform 
service in [that tabernacle which is] @ mere copy of the heavenly 
[sanctuary]. Comp. v.2 and 9:24. “Yrodevypwa means, image, 

' efigy, copy, resemblance, imitation ; all designating the idea, that 
the earthly temple stands related to the heavenly one, only as a 
painting or picture of any thing, does to the object itself. The 
heavenly oxyv1 is alnOuvos ; the earthly one oxea 0 a. 

Sa, shadow, slight and imperfect image, sketch ; distinct from 
sinxov, a picture completed, an accurate resemblance. It is also the 
correlate antithesis of compa, body; see Col. 2:17. 2xue I have 
construed as qualifying vode/yuare, and rendered both words, 
mere copy, i.e. I have construed themas a Hendiadys. ‘The mean- 
ing is, that it is only a resemblance; i. e. the earthly tabernacle is 
but a shadow, a mere imperfect effigy, of the heavenly one. Con- 
sequently, the office of priest in the latter, is far more elevated than 

the like office in the former. 

Tov énovoavioy, i.e. ayidv, sanctuary. So in v. 2 ayiov 
evtovyyos, i.e. ayiwy [romwr] decroveyos, a minister of the holy 
of holies, or, of the most holy place. 

Koadws yonuatcoras .... 008, for Moses, when about to build 
the tabernacle, was divinely admonished ; “‘ See now,” said he, ‘ that 
thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee, in the 
mount.” 

Xonuatifo means, to give oracular responses, or, to make com- 
munications to men in any supernatural way. It is spoken, active- 
ly, of God and not of men. So Phavorinus, yonparies, leyerar 
Ent Oewv' 10 08 OvaheyeoOur, Eni aevOownwv. In the passive voice 


¢ 

& 
ry 

~ 


via, 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 5—7. 183 


(as here), it means, to receive divine responses or communications, 
of any kind. 

‘Enutrsisiv, to complete, finish, perform, do, make. yot, viz. 
God saith, in Ex. 25: 40. comp. Ex. 25:9. 26: 30. 27: 8. Num. 
8:4. 1 Chron. 28:11, 19. Acts 7:44. The Hebrew word, to 
which tumor here corresponds, is nan, model, sketch, delineation, 
form. Tonos means, model or form here ; as it often does. ”Oose 
refers to mount Sinai; for it was during the theophany there, that 
communications were made to Moses on the subject of building the 
tabernacle ; see Ex. 24: 18, comp. 25: 9, 40. 31: 18. 32:1. See 
Excursus XV. 

6 Nuvi 62 dcagoowrgous retsvye Aectovoyias, but now has he 
obtained a service of a more excellent nature; i. e. since he is not a 
priest in the earthly temple, but in the heavenly one, he has an of- 
fice [now] dvaqpoowréoa, [so much] more exalted, viz. than that of 
the Levitical priests. 





"“Oow nai... . wecirns, as much more, as the covenant, of which 
he is the mediator, is superior [to the ancient one], being sanctioned 
with better promises. loom must be understood in the clause pre- 
ceding this, viz. 106m dvagogwréoas, in order to make out the 
comparison which its correlate dow implies, in the latter. Nevowo- 
Péerntat, is sanctioned, i. e. is promulgated and established with all 
the solemnity and stability of a law. The better promises follow, 
viz. in vs. 8—13. The imperfection of the first covenant, and the 
perfection of the second, is disclosed further, in 9: 9—14. 10: 1— 
22. 13: 9-14. From these passages it appears, that the first cov- 
enant promised only external purification, and the civil or ecclesias- 
tical pardon of an offender who complied with the rites which it 
enjoined ; but under the new covenant, real pardon of sin by God 
is to be obtained, with purification and peace of conscience, the 
hope of eternal life, and union at last with the assembly of the re- 
deemed in a better world. 

The sentiment of the apostle, then, in our verse, stands thus; 
‘ The office with which Christ is invested as a priest, or his priest- 
ly function, is as much superior to that of the Levitical priests, as 
the covenant under which he holds his office, excels, in the bless- 
ings which it promises, the covenant introduced by Moses.’ 

7. Ei yoo 4 nowtyn ....ton0¢, moreover, if that first [cove- 
nant] had been faultless, then no place for the second would have been 


i ’ P . «, 
if o mn ~ i 
: 
184 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 7, S. 


sought. “H mourn, sc. dva9nxn, means here, the Jewish dispensa- 
tion or economy. ” Ausumros, without fault, free from defect. The 
meaning is not that the Mosaic economy had positive faults, viz. 
such things as were palpably wrong or erroneous; but that it did 
not contain in itself all the provision necessary for pardon of sin, 
and the rendering of the conscience peaceful and pure ; which the 
gospel does effect. See on 7: 19 and comp. 9: 9--14, 23, 24. 10: 
1—3, 10—14. The law, then, was not réhevog, i. e. &ueumrog ; nor 
was it designed to be any thing more, than a dispensation prepara- 
tory to the gospel. 

*Efyreiro rom0g, no room had been sought, or, no provision had 
been made, for a second, i. e. for a new covenant, or, the gospel dis- 
pensation. 

8. Meugouevos yao avrois déyer, but, finding fault [with the 
first covenant], he says to them, i.e. the Jews. The passage is ca- 
pable of another construction, viz, finding fault with them, i.e. the 
Jews; in which way a majority of the commentators, with Chrysos- 
tom, have understood it. Mé¢ugouau can undoubtedly govern av- 
roi¢ in the dative ; but still, I prefer the other construction. The 
apostle says, ‘The former covenant was not eéueuntos.” He goes 
on to prove this; but how? By quoting a passage from Jer. 31: 31 
—-34. But what does this passage contain? Méugeras, says the 
apostle, i. q. usuqouervos gore, i. e. it affirms that the law is not 
&ueumros: for these two words are plainly connected as antitheses, 
by the writer. Ifso, then weuqouevog applies to deaOnxn and not 
to auroig; and so I understand it. If the ellipsis be supplied it 
will read, usuqouevog avrn, sc. dcadnxn. In such a case, avroie 
is governed by Aéyev. Th 

_ In addition to the argument us drawn from the writer’s pur- 
pose, I would also suggest, that the whole of Jer. xxx1. which pre- 
cedes the passage quoted, is made up of consolation and promise, 
instead of reproof or finding fault. The imputation of defect, then, 
must be such an imputation, in this case, as is implied in the pas- 
sage quoted. But in this, the declaration that a new covenant 
should supersede the old one, implies, of course, that the old one 
had failed to accomplish all the objects. to be desired, i. e. it was 
defective. 

The apostle evidently understands the passage quoted, as orig- 
inally having respect to the gospel dispensation; nor can I per- 


Saal a ¥. 
ony. y 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 8, 185 


ceive any good reason why it should not be so understood. There 
is the same objection, that any prophecy whatever should be un- 
derstood as having regard to this dispensation, as there would be 
to this being so understood ; consequently, there is sufficient rea- 
son why this should be understood as the apostle has explained it, 
unless we reject altogether the idea, that any truly prophetic de- 
clarations of such a nature can and do exist. 

"L00v jusoar.... xatvnv, behold the days are coming, saith the 
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah. */Sov corresponds to the Hebrew =n, 
and is used to excite the particular attention of persons, who are 
addressed, to any thing or subject. It is Hebraism, and not of 
classic usage ; at least not in any measure so frequently employed 
in the classics, as by the writers of the New Testament. ‘Jdov is 
accented on the ultimate, to mark it as an adverb, and to distinguish 
it from ‘ov 2. aor. imp. of the verb edw. 

‘Hugooe éoyovtas is equivalent to the Hebrew bwx2 D727, which 
is used indefinitely for any future period, whether near or remote. 
The simple ipesning of the expression is, ‘ At some future period, 
I will make, ete.’ 

Ent rov oinov Jooayi nai ént tov oixov “Jovda, i. q. Hebres 
Sawn MIU? M2, i. e. house, family, tribe, or nation of Judah 
and Israel." The meaning is, with all the twelve tribes, i. e. the 
whole of the Hebrew nation. “ui tov oixov, i. q. ni tw otxa, 
see Wahl’s Lexicon on én/,no. 8. a. In the Septuagint, the passage 
reads, xat dvaOjoouae Tw ofxw logand nai ta otnw Lovda dvwdn- 








“NY KULYNDY. 
Avednxny is Geary Sonora by the Seventy, in order to 
translate m=43. The general idea of dcayxy is, disposition or 
arrangement of any kind, or in regard to any matter; from the 
verb dvatidnue, to dispose of, to arrange. Hence, it is sometimes 
employed by classic writers, in the sense of foedus, compact or cov- 
enant between two parties; but not so in the New Testament. 
Like the Hebrew m*43, (to which, according to the usus loquendi 
of the New Testament, it generally corresponds), it often means 
law, precept : even particular precept, as in Acts 7: 8, the precept 
of circumcision ; in Rom. 9: 4, a dvadnynae, the tables of the law, 
i. e. the ten commandments, comp. Deut. 4: 13, where n™92 is ex- 
plained by D439 nw, the ten commandments ; comp. also 
VOL. I. DY] 


186 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 8, 9. 


Deut. 9: 9, 11. So Heb. 9:4, xeBwrov r7¢ dvadnuns, the ark 
which contained the dva07xn7, i. e. the two tables of the ten com- 
mandments, (i. q. mAs tn 72 7278, Num. 10: 33); and after- 
ward, in the same verse, ai nhaxeg 179 OtaOr}nn¢, the [stone] tablets 
containing the ten commandments. 'The general idea of law, pre- 
cept, statute, is very commonly annexed to m°42 in Hebrew, where 
the Septuagint render it by dvadyxn; e. g. Ex. 19: 5, et al. saepe. 
Both in classic authors, and in the New Testament, it has also the 
meaning of last will, testament; e. g. Gal. 3: 15. Heb. 9: 16, 17. 

Most frequently of all, is m»2 in the Old Testament, and dva- 
97[xy in the New, employed to designate a promise, compact, or 
agreement on the part of God with his people, that on condition of 
doing thus and so, blessings of such and such a nature shall be be- 
stowed upon them. It comes, in this way, very commonly to de- 
signate the whole Jewish economy, (as we call it), with its condi- 
tions and promises; and by the writers of the New Testament it is 
employed, in a similar way, to designate the new economy or dispen- 
sation of Christ, with all its conditions and promised blessings. 
Thus, oj nadova or mowry dvadyxy means, the Jewish dispensa- 
tion; and » xatvn Ovaedrjxn means, the Christian dispensation. 
The idea often annexed by readers to the word covenant, viz. mu- 
tual compact, and a quid pro quo in respect to each of the parties, 
is not the Scriptural one. The meaning altogether predominant is, 
an arrangement on the part of God in respect to men, in conse- 
quence of which certain blessings are secured to them by his prom- 
ise, on condition that they comply with the demands which he 
makes, i.e. obey his precepts. Acadrjxn, then, embraces both 
precept and promise; and may be used for either, or for both at the 
same time, pro re naid; and it often is so used, in the Old Testa- 
ment and also in the New. | 

An our text, dvatyxny xacvyy means, a new arrangement or 
disposition made by Christ, i. e. one which has, in some respects, 
new conditions and new promises. 

9. Ov xara ryv Ovadyxny x. t.4. This clause is explanatory 
of the word xavv7jy in the preceding verse. The meaning is, ‘The 
covenant which I will make, at a future period, with the Jewish 
nation, (i,e. the dispensation under which I will place them), 
shall be different from that which I made, when I brought them 
out of Egypt.’ 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 9. 187 


"Ev jucog éndaBousvou pov tyg yéroog aviwy, Hebrew Dira 
BIS YUN. Xevgos, in the genitive, is governed by the force 
of él ta composition with AaBouevor 5 SO émthauGavery tS yEse- 
gos, to take by the hand, to lead, ete. *Léayxyeiv, to bring or lead 
out, <i¢ ro being understood before the infinitive here. Both words 
together mean, assisted or helped to come out. This clause is add- 
ed by the writer, in order to shew plainly, that he means the dca- 
Onxnv, which was made when Moses led the Israelites out of 
Egypt, through the wilderness, toward Canaan. 

“Ore avrol oun Euswvan év ry Ovwdyxy wou, because they did not 
keep my covenant. The Hebrew is, ‘7 a-ns AMDT Wa VLR, 
because they violated my covenant, i. e. failed to perform the con- 
ditions on which I promised to bestow blessings upon them. ‘The 
Greek ovx &veusevay, isa version ad sensum, but notad literam. Meé- 
vw or éuuévo means, among other things, to persevere, to be constant, 
to continue firm or steadfast in any thing. ‘The Greek expression, 
ovx évéusrvay is softer than D7 ; and as ovx éuscvay conveys, for 
substance, the same idea as 797, we may well suppose it was pre- 
ferred to a stronger expression by the writer of our epistle, while 
he was addressing himself to his Jewish brethren. “Oxe ovx évé- 
pécvay assigns a reason why a new covenant was to be made, viz. 
because the old one is broken, and because it has not been kept 
on the part of the Jews, and will not be kept, therefore a new one, 
on different conditions and with better promises, shall be made. 

Kayo juehnou aitov, Hebrew p32 ‘nya 1258), (Eng. version) 
although I was an husband to them ; Gesenius, although T was their 
Lord; both according to a sense of bya, which is a usual one. But 
that the Septuagint have given a correct version here, and the 


apostle properly adopted it in our text, is very probable. The Ara- 
FAL At 
bic US }%) (a 523) means to loath, to reject with loathing ; see 
fy 4 
Castell Lex. on je. In this sense, it is probable, 2 5y3 is used, 
in Jer. 31: 32, and, as some think, in Jer. 3: 14. So Abul Walid, 
Joseph Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchum understood the word in 31: 
32; and in like manner many modern critics. The Greek uédn- 
oa means, to neglect, to disregard, to treat with neglect, and is (like 
oux évéuevvay) a softer expression than the corresponding Hebrew 
one, while it conveys for substance the same idea. The Septua- 


188 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 9—11. 





gint, in their rendering of 3 "nhd2, appear to have preserved an 
ancient meaning of the word bys, the correctness of which the 
Arabic is a pledge for, at the present time. 

The disregarding, or treating with neglect (jpéheoa), here 
spoken of, has reference to the various punishments inflicted upon 
Israel for their wickedness, instead of the blessings which they 
would have received, had they been obedient. 

10. “Ore airy 4 dtd jun . . xvgv0S, but this is the covenant 
which I will make with the Rabin af Israel, after those days, saith the 
Lord. “Ovt, but, so the Hebrew 2, Ps. 44: 23. 130: 4. Job. 14: 
16, al. The Lexicons are imperfect in regard tothis word. Ova 
"Jooanh, house of Israel in this verse means, the Jews in general, 
the Israelitish nation ; for so the whole nation is often named, in 
the Old Testament and in the New. 

Awdovg vouovg pou sig tHv Ovavocav avrav, I will put my 
laws upon their mind, Hebrew paqps- For dvdous, the Septuagint 
has dvdovg dwow, meaning, I suppose, deeply infix. This sense of 
didmuse comes from the Hebrew 7m2; see Wahl on didwpc, no. 8. 
Auéous, like the present participle in Hebrew, is used for the fu- 
ture dwow. To place or put laws upon their minds, of course means 
to inscribe or engrave them, as it were, i. e. deeply to infix them. 
Kai ini xugdtas avray éncyoawo avrovs, and I will engrave them 
upon their hearts, or, inscribe them upon their hearts; an expres- 
sion parallel to the preceding, and of the same import. The mean- 
ing of both is, I will give*them a lasting spirit of obedience to my 
laws, so that they will no niore violate them as they have done; i.e. 
the new covenant shall be distinguished from the old, by a higher 
and more permanent spirit of obedience in those who live under 
it. 

Kai éoouae avrois-.... haov, and I will be their. God, and 
they shall be my people; i.e. I will grant them peculiar protection 
and blessings, and they shall be peculiarly obedient and devoted to 
me. Comp. Rev. 2!: 3, 4,7. Zech. 8:8. For the meaning of the 
Hebrew idiom, ¢¢¢ Deov and eg Aady, see on Heb. 1: 5 

ll. Kai ov un didakovow.... xvgtov, no one shall teach his 
own fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord. 
For roy wodizyv, various manuscripts and editions have roy mAyolov. 
‘The original Hebrew is AVANT WN) STAY way Ty 197927 go 
which, interpreted agreeably to a well known Hebrew idiom, 


"4 


+ + 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 11, 12. 189 


See 


means simply, one shall not teach another ; for Ux and y4, as well 

as WN and MN simply denote, cach other, or one another, when 
thus coupled together. Tov nohirny, in our text, corresponds to 
the Hebrew amy7; and this word the Septuagint almost always 
render by nAyotoy. ‘This is the ground, probably, why the reading 
nmAnotov has been preferred by Bengel, Carpzoff, and some other 
critics. But xodiryy is in the best manuscripts ; and Wetstein, 

Griesbach, Matthiae, Rosenmueller, Knapp, Heinrichs, Tittmann, 
and others, prefer it. The Septuagint, moreover, render ¥> by 
modirns, in Prov. 11: 9. 24: 28. Whether, however, mAnotoyv or 
nodirny be adopted, the sense is not changed. The meaning of 
the whole phrase, is simply what the Hebrew idiom allows it to 
signify, viz, ‘One shall have no need to teach another.’ The re- 
petition of the sentiment, by tov modéryy avrou and tov adehgov 
avtov, belongs merely to the poetic parallelism of the original He- 
brew, which expresses the same thought in two different ways; as 
is constantly done by the synonymous parallelisms of the Old Tes- 
tament. 

"Ore novteg .... meyehou avray, for all shall know me, from 
the least tu the greatest, i. e. all of whatever rank or condition, high 
or low, rich or poor—all classes of people, shall have a knowledge 
of God. Mixoov and peyahou here refer to condition, rather than 
age. 

The writer does not mean that religious instruction will be al- 
together superseded, when the happy period arrives of which he 
speaks ; but that, inasmuch as the laws of God will be infixed upon 
the hearts of his people, and engraven upon their minds, none will 
be ignorant, as in former times, of his true’ character and the re- 
quirements of his law. The words are not to be urged to a literal 
explanation. The meaning of the whole plainly is, that the knowl- 
edge of true religion, or of God, should become universal, under the 
new covenant, so that no one might be found, who could properly 
be addressed as knowing nothing of the true God. The implica- 
tion, moreover, contained in this, is, that under the old covenant 
many had been thus ignorant; a fact highly credible, consider- 
ing the frequent lapses of the Jews into a state of idolatry. 

12. “Ore thews Evouce .. . Exe, for Twill be merciful in respect to 
their iniquities, and their sins and their transgressions will I remem- 
her no more. “JAgws, propitious, mild, clement, governs the dative 


190 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 12, 13. 











tare aduxiass, and (like MON to which it corresponds) designates 
the idea of readiness to pardon, or, to deal mildly with offenders. 

Tov avoutmy avrov is not in the Hebrew, nor in the common 
Septuagint, nor Vulgate, Syr. Copt. Ethiop. The Hebrew has 
only OnNwM, to which ray auaorowy avra@y answers, in our text. 
It is difficult, or rather impossible, now to determine whether ray 
civouroy avrev was originally inserted by the writer of our epistle, 
or crept in afterwards from some edition of the Septuagint which 
contained it. But whether it be admitted or excluded, it makes no 
difference in the sentiment of the passage ; the first clause of which 
is the first member of a poetic parallelism, to which the second 
clause corresponds, echoing the same sentiment. “/Asme eivae tas. 
aduzwuig means, to be forgiving, ready to pardon; and ov uvnod7- 
val TOY avOULMY Means, to pass sins by unpunished, to treat offen- 
ders as though their sins were forgotten. The expression, applied 
to God, is altogether anthropopathic ; but so are most other expres- 
sions, which speak of him as acting in relation to such subjects. 

Thus far the quotation from Jeremiah, in order to preve that a 
new covenant, better than the Mosaic one, was to be made with the 
people of God. The writer now adds, as a comment on what he 
had quoted, 

13. “Ey to deve... . mew@rny, in saying a new [covenant], he 
represents the first [covenant] as old. Of course, if a new one is 
to. take the place of the former one, the former is considered as. ob- 
solete. ITenahaiwxe, like the Hebrew Piel and Hiphil, means: to 
represent a thing as old, or, as superannuated ; for in no other sense, 
did the words just quoted make the former covenant old. 

Now follows the deduction of the apostle from this. Tv 62 ma- 
Aavovmevov ..... Aapaviouov, now that which has become old, 
and is advancing in age, is near to dissolution. Tlakutow is more 
usually applied to things, and ynoaoxw to persons. The use of 
two synonymous words here, serves merely to strengthen the 
representation, and is equivalent.to saying, ‘ That which is very 
old.’ 

" Agaviouod, lit. disappearing, vanishing. Applied to a law or 
dispensation, it means abolition or abrogation. The argument of 
the writer is thus ; * What is very old, is near dissolution; but the 
prophet Jeremiah has represented the former covenant as memahoc- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 13.—9: 1. 191 





ovuevny ; therefore it is near dissolution, or, it is about to be dis- 
solved or abrogated. 


CHAP. IX. 


For an illustration of the course of thought and reasoning in 
this chapter, see above, p. 121 seq. 

1. Hiye nev ovy nui 7, mgwty.... xoouexov, moreover the first 
[covenant] also had ordinances of service, and a sanctuary of a 
worldly nature. Odv, a sign of transition here, for a new subject is 
introduced. The force of zai here, is not easily described. I join 
it with eiye thus, ‘ Besides what I have said about the first cove- 
nant, let me add, that sive xa, it also had ordinances, etc. All three 
‘particles, uév ovv xat, might be rendered, and besides, and further, and 
I may add, etc.; but I prefer the manner in which I have render- 
ed them. As to pév, it is the mere sign of protasis ; see below, on 
ve Eds 

‘H nowtn, i.e. dtu, comp. 8: 6, 7,13; not 7 newt oxy- 
vy, as some critics have supposed. 

Avnovwmata hargsias means, a service arranged, conducted, by 
rules or ordinances. Aatgeia designates the public service of the 
temple or tabernacle; and dcxaewpara, the rules or precepts which 
regulated it. “4yvov usually means, sanctuary or holy place, in a 
gencral sense, and so it may be taken here, viz. for the whole tem- 
ple. But it may also be understood, as referring to that spacious 
apartment of the temple, in which the various articles of sacred 
furniture were placed that are immediately mentioned, which, how- 
ever, is called by the writer, «yea, inv. 2. If it be the same as 
ava, it is distinguished from ayre ayiwy, in the third verse; which 
means the apartment behind the veil, where the ark, etc. were de- 
posited. Kooucxoy (from xdouos) means, pertaining to this world, 
of a terrestrial nature, i. e. material, the opposite of ov yergominror 
in 9: 11, 24, and i. q. yeeyonotntoyr ; the opposite also, of ‘/yoovocArye 
énoveayeos, 12: 22, comp. Rev. 21: 2. Some critics have explained 
xooucxov by formosum, illustre, because “x00u0¢ sometimes signifies, 
ornatus, elegantia. But the adjective which designates the mean- 
ing correspondent with these significations, is xooucos, and nat 
HOOMLXOS. 1 


192 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 2. 


2. Sunvy yao.... mourn, for an outer tabernacle was con- 
structed. «nv evidently means here, only one apartment of the 
‘egov or sacred building ; ; comp. v. 3, where another oxyvy is de- 
scribed. “H mowrn means, that which first presents itself, viz. to 
the worshipper as he enters the outer court of the building; there- 
fore outer oxyvy or apartment, the most holy place being the inner 
one. We might expect, according to the rules laid down by gram- 
marians concerning the Greek article, that either oxyv7j would 
have the article, or sgwry would omit it. Constructions, however, 
of the same kind as oxnvn 7 mowrn, are frequent in the New Tes- 
tament; e. g. Rom. 2:9avPeum0v rod zoyasouevov; 2: 14, Zvy 
Ta.... un eyovta; 5:5, mvevyuaros ayiov tov dodEvtos. See 
Rom. 8: 33, 34. 1 Cor. 2: 7. Gal. 3: 21. 1 Thess. 1:10. 1 Tim. 
6: 13. 2 Tim. 1: 8, 9, 14. Heb. 6:7, etc. See Gersdorf’s Beitrage 
p- 355 seq. It happens in this case, (as in regard to most of the 
definite rules laid down about the use of the Greek article), that in- 
vestigation shews the principle assumed to be by no means uni- 
form, and that the Greek writers were less regular in regard to 
this matter, than the grammarians would fain have us believe. For 
the dimensions, etc. of the various oxyvai, or apartments of the 
temple, see 1 K. v1. 

‘Ev 4, 4 te huyvia .... Horwv, in which [apartment] was the 
candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread. For a description 
of the candlestick, see Ex. 25: 31—39. 37: 17—24. The Hebrew 
word answering to Avyvia, is 572. The Toaneto. is described 
in Ex. 25: 23—29. The. design of the table was, ‘that the bread | 
which was consecrated tothe Lord might be placed upon it. ITo0- 
Inorg tov aotar, the exhibition of the bread, viz. before Jehovah, 
is described in Ex. 25: 30 and Lev. 24:5—9. The earlier Hebrew 
name was DE Oty, presence-bread. It is also called pm> Fy, 
and n> yar orth, the arrangement of bread, or, the bread arran- 
ged, in reference to the manner in which it was exhibited upon the 
table; see Lev. 24: 5, 6. 

The altar of incense is omitted in this catalogue of sacred uten- 
sils; as it is omitted in the draft for building the tabernacle by 
- Moses, in Ex. xxv. But it is mentioned in Ex. 30: 1, and 37: 25 
—28. 35:15. So also the altar of burnt offering is omitted, in 
Ex. xxv., although it is mentioned in Ex. 35: 16. 38: 1; and many 
other utensils of the tabernacle also are omitted in Ex. xxv., which 








COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 2, 3. 193 





are mentioned in Ex. xxxv. Our author expressly says (9: 5), that 
he shall not attempt to mention all the particulars of sacred appara- 
tus for the temple service. 

“Hews héyerae ayou, which is called «yva, i. e. UP, Bp, the 
holy place, the sanctuary ; a different apartment in the ‘egov or 
sacred enclosure, from the eyva ayiov mentioned in v. 3. “4 Ayva 
in our text, is plural; for the singular fem. is written ayia, (with the 
accent on the penult), not HY U0. The writer means to say that 9 
oxnvn nowrn; the outer apartment, of the temple, was called ayze. 
The plural is used here in order to designate one apartment in the 
temple, just as it is in aye ayiwy (not ayia eyiwy),v. 3; and both 
are conformed to a usage that is common in Hebrew, which not 
unfrequently employs the plural to designate, the sanctuary. KE. g 
Ps. 73: 17, >S—"wWaApy, 1. e. aycoe Beov. Ps. 68: 36, PwIpn, ayoe 
gov. Lev. 21: 23, wip, ayia mov, etc. 

3. Mera 62 to stor nxacaneraouc, and behind the second 
vail. A description of this vail is given, in Ex. 26: 31—33, 36: 35, 
36. As the inner vail is here called devregov, the necessary im- 
plication is, that there was a mgmroy also; and accordingly we 
find it described in Ex. 26: 36, 37, and Ex. 36: 37, 38. The He- 
brew name of the inner vail, (which separated the most holy place 
from the @yva or common sanctuary), is M245, as given in Ex. 
26: 31—33, and in the corresponding Ex. 36: 35, 36, also Lev. 16: 
2. The Hebrew name of the outer vail, which served as a door 
for the tabernacle, i. e. which covered the entrance passage to the 
first eyvov, is FOr. The former is called xaranétaoua by the 
Septuagint, (as the apostle calls it in our text), in Ex. 26: 31, 33. 
Lev. 16: 2. Ex. 36: 35, and also by the Evangelists, Matt. 27: 58. | 
Mark 15: 38; The latter, both xarameraoua and énionaorteor, in 
the passages connected with those just cited. There was a third 
external covering or curtain for the tabernacle, (called my, 
niss4*, in Ex. 26: 1, 2 seq.), which Dindorf says was a third vail; 
but white manifestly, Paul does not reckon to be such; nor Mo- 
ses, in the passages above cited. 

Suny 7 heyouevyn ayra ayiov, the apartment which is called the 
holy of holies, i. e. the most holy place, i. q. DYWIPA WIP, a com- 
mon form of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote intensity. 
In regard to 2] Aeyouevn, after oxnrr} without the article, see on 7% 
owry obove. Kareoxsvaody is understood after oxyvr ; see, in 

VOL. Il. 25 


194 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 3, 4. 





v. 2, where it is expressed. ‘The inner sanctuary was called most 
holy, because there was the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, 
etc. ; and there the presence of Jehovah, (which the Jews in later 
times called 3°>W), was peculiarly manifested, so that this was re- 
garded as his particular dwelling place, 43497. 

4. Xovoovy &yovou Guucatyjoror, containing the golden censer. 
See Excursus XVI. 

Kai tyv xBorov.... yovsiw, and the ark of the covenant, 
covered on every part with gold. KiBwtosg was a coffer or chest, 
made of wood, and covered with laminae of gold ; a description of 
which is given in Ex. 25: 10-16. 37: 1--5. It is called the ark 
of the covenant, because in it were deposited the two tables of the 
covenant, (M43, see on dvaMyxnv in 8: 8, and comp. Deut. 4: 13. 
9: 9, 11) ; which tables are also called the two tables of testimony, i.e. 
of statutes, nIIy7 NAP 72, Ex. 31: 18. Both the terms n-73 and 
nasy plainly mean, laws, statutes, or precepts, in this case, and 
both refer principally to the ten commandments ; see 1 K. 8:9, and 
Deut. 10: 1-5. 2 Chron. 5: 10. 6: 11. 

"Ev 7 orapvos yovon éxyovoe 10 wave, in which [ark] was a 
golden pot containing the manna. The fact to which this alludes, 
is described in Ex. 16: 32—34; where the orauvog is called sim- 
ply n22, i.e. pot, urn, vessel for safe keeping. Nothing is said, 
indeed, of its being golden in the Hebrew ; but the Septuagint ren- 
der n2X3 by orauvoy yovoovv. Of the fact that it was so, no one 
will be disposed to doubt, who reads a description of the furniture 
of the most holy place, and finds that almost every thing within it » 
was either pure gold, or was overlaid with gold; e. g. the ark, Ex. 
25: 11; the mercy seat, 25: 17; the cherubim 25: 18; the pillars 
and hooks for the vail that separated the inner sanctuary from the 
other, 26: 31, 32. Who now can rationally suppose, that the urn 
containing manna, and the censer used on the great day of atone- 
ment, were not also golden ? See Excursus XVII. 

Mavva; see on this word, Rosenm. on Ex. 16: 153; where the 
various derivations of the word are considered ; the various species 
of manna described; and the fact shewn, that the supply of this 
‘food for the Israelites in the wilderness, was understood, by the 
writer of the narration in Exodus, to be miraculous. 


Kain 60860¢ “Aaguiv 7 Bhacticaoe, and the rod of Aaron 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 4, 5. 195 





which budded. See Num. 17: 1—10, and what is said respecting 
this rod and the pot of manna, in Exc. XVII. 

Kai ai nhaxes r74¢ dvadynxng, the tables of the covenant, means 
the stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, 
and which were deposited in the ark, Ex. 31: 18. 32: 16. 34: 28, 
where the words of the covenant are expressly said to be the ten 
commandments ; Deut. 10: 1, 2. 1K. 8:9. 2 Chron. 5: 10. The 
writer asserts, therefore, that the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, 
and the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were 
inscribed, were all laid up originally in the x«fwzos. 

5. ‘Treva dé avrys yeooupiu.... 10 ihaorngvov, and over 
it [the ark] were splendid Cherubim, which overshadowed the cover- 
ing of the ark. See the description of the Cherubim in Ex. 25: 
18—20. 1 K. 8: 6, 7. 1 Chron. 28: 18. That Cherubim were 
symbolical images or representations, is quite plain from comparing 
the various descriptions given of them in different passages of 
Scripture; e. g. Ex. 25: 18—20. 26: 31. 1 K. 6: 23—29, 32, and 
Ezek. 1. and x., particularly 10: 20—22. I understand the word 
doéng as referring to the splendor of these symbolical figures, which 

“were covered with gold throughout, Ex. 25: 18--20. 1 K. 6: 28. 
Some understand do£fy¢ of the glory which was displayed under 
and around them; to which they suppose a reference to be made 
in Ps. 80: 1 [2]. 

Koaaoxiecovre refers to the outstretched wings of the Cherubim 
over the iAwornovov, as described in the passages above quoted. 
‘JAaornovov here means, the lid or covering of the xsfwrog, which 
was pure gold, Ex. 25: 17,21. In Hebrew it is called n £5, 
which the Seventy have rendered fAaoryjovoy, in Ex. 25: 17, 21. 
As 352 means fo cover sin, i. e. to make atonement for it, so Mn BD 
may very naturally be rendered, ‘Aaor7ovoy, since it was by sprink- 
ling blood upon this iAaor7jocov, by the high priest, that atonement 
was made, Lev. 16: 14. ‘/haornocov, understood in reference to 
this, might be translated, the place or instrument of propitiation, 
or (with our English translators) mercy-seat. It was over this, that 
the divine glory was seen, i. e. a supernatural, excessive brightness ; 
and hence God was supposed to be seated on it, as his throne, and 
from it to dispense his mercy, when atonement was made for the 
sins of the people, by sprinkling it with blood. Hence our appella- 
tion, mercy seat. 


196 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 5—7. 


Tlegi ov .... wéoos, respecting which things, it is not my pres- 
ent design to speak with particularity. Sv here refers to the va- 
rious articles of sacred furniture, which he had just been mention- 
ing. He means to say, that a particular description of these, and 
of all the various utensils of the sanctuary, is not what he intends 
to give ; i.e. he shall content himself with merely having suggest- 
ed those which were already named. 

6. Tovtov 02 ovr xaraonevalouevor, now these things being 
thus prepared. Kearaozevate is also, to build or construct, But in 
our phrase, it means more. It designates not only the fabrication 
of the various utensils above named, but the adaptation of them to 
their respective purposes, and the arrangement of them in the or- 
der which the rites of the sanctuary required. 

Eig wév cyv now@rny .... énevedourtes, the priests, performing 
the services, entered continually into the outer tabernacle. Tlowrny, 
that which is first approached, i.e. outer, as in v. 2above. _Aarger- 
ac, public religious services; see onv. 1 above. Avanarros, every 
day, without intermission, constantly and often. This the priest 
did, to make the morning and evening oblations and sacrifices ; and 
also to present the private offerings of individuals. Mev is the 
usual sign of the protasis of a sentence here ; to which dg, in the 
apodosis, v.7, corresponds. Mv, in such a case, is incapable of a 
translation that corresponds with its use in the original. It is easy 
to see, that there is not only a correspondence between the two 
parts of the sentence, above mentioned, but also an antithesis “be- 
tween them. 

‘7. Big 02 thy Osutégay.... 06 aeyregers, but into the second 
[viz. oxyvyy, tabernacle, apartment], the high priest only [enter- 
ed], once in a year; comp. Lev. 16:2. Aevréoav implies cxnv7yr. 
” Anak means either simply once, as anak xai dic, once and again ; 
or it means once only, once for all; which is the meaning of it here, 
and in several other passages of this epistle. bv éveavrov is the 
genitive of time; the genitive being commonly used in order to 
designate the time when, or how often. On the great day of atone- 
ment, it appears that the high priest went thrice into the inner 
sanctuary, Lev. 16: 12, 14, 15; to which may be added once more, 
in order to bring out the golden censer ; which accords well with 
the Jewish tradition, viz. that the high priest entered the sanctuary 
four times, on the great day of expiation. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 7, 8. 197 


TROT 0 a err ee 

O8 yools aiparos, not without blood. See Lev. 16: 14, 15, by 
which it appears, that the blood of a young bullock, Lev. 16:3, and 
ofa goat, was brought into the most holy place, by the high priest, 
on the great day of atonement, and there sprinkled seven times 
upon the mercy seat and before it. 

“O mooopege ... . eyvonucray, which he presented for his own 
sins, and for those of the people. See Lev. 16: 6, 11, 14-16. 
Tloocqéoe: designates the act of presenting the blood before the 
Lord, as indicated in Lev. 16: 14—16. That the priest was to 
make atonement for himself, as well as for the people, is expressly 
declared in the verses above referred to. “4yvonuarmy Wahl ren- 
ders, sins of ignorance. But plainly it is not necessarily limited to 
this confined sense. It means, fault, error, sin, generally consider- 
ed. Soin Judith 5: 20. Sirach 23:2. 51:19. Tobit 3: 3. 1 Macc. 
13: 39. The LXX have sometimes used it to express the Hebrew 
navn, from yu to err. In Lev. 4: 2, 13, 22, 27, sins MaawWs, 
through precipitancy, are mentioned, and atonement is directed ‘to 
be made for them, by sprinkling blood before the mercy seat, Lev. 
4: 6,17. But this mode of making atonement, and this limitation 
of the kind of offences, for which it was to be made in this peculiar 
way, seem to have been afterwards changed, and limited in a dif 
ferent way, on the occasion of the death of the sons of Aaron, Lev. 
10, 1,2. 16: 1,2. It would seem, from Lev. rv., as if the sins 
axa had a special atonement made for them, in the inner sanc- 
tuary, without limitation as to the number of times that the high 
priest might go there. But Lev. 16:2 restricted this custom; 
so that atonement for sin of any kind was made, before the mercy 
seat, only once in a year, agreeably to Ex. 30: 10. 

8. Touro dnhotvvrog.... 0d0v, the Holy Spirit signifying by 
this, that the way to the most holy placewas not yet laid open. The 
holy Spirit here mentioned, is that Spirit which guided the ancient 
prophets ; which taught Moses what arrangements to make for the 
service of God ; and which signified, by these arrangements, what 
the apostle here affirms. ouvro I construe with dca understood, 
viz. by this; so Ernesti and Dindorf, his rebus; Storr, wodurch, 
whereby. 

Tv tov ayiay odov means, the way to the heavenly or upper 
sanctuary. Through Jesus only, Jews and Gentiles have free ac- 
cess, at all times, to the mercy seat of heaven; comp. Eph. 2: 18. 


198 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 8, 9. 





Heb. 4: 16. This way was before obstructed by numerous cer- 
emonial rites, and limited as to times and persons, Of necessity 
such was the case. 

"Ere cng nowrns oxnvyg éyovons oracw, while the first taber- 
nacle had a standing ; i. e. so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted. 
Tlowrns oxnvie¢ is here used, in the general or unlimited sense, 
for the tabernacle or temple with its services. 

9. "Hrs nagafoky .... tov éveornudta, which [has been] a 
type down to the present time. Tluguftodn means, symbol, similitude, 
image, i.e. symbolical representation of any thing; which is also 
the meaning of ruzog. But in the English language, type is used 
not for similitude merely, but for something, under the ancient cov- 
enant, which was specially destgned, on the part of God, to be a 
symbol of some person or event, that was to exist or take place un- 
der the new one. Here, the preceding verse shews that the an- 
cient tabernacle or temple, was designed by the Holy Spirit to be 
a symbol, expressive of some important truths that had relation to 
the New Testament dispensation. Of course, the rendering of 
maoufokn by type, is appropriate to express the idea intended to 
be conveyed by the writer. Zig rov éveornuora, down to the pres- 
ent time; €i¢, ad, usque ad, see Wahl on ¢ig, 2. a. 

Ka ov dooa....hargevovra, in which both oblations and 
sacrifices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed 
for the worshipper, in respect to his conscience. Koa® ov, in which, 
during which, viz. time ; see Wahl *on xara, no. 2. Awga té xai 
Svoiae means, offerings of every kind, which were presented to 
God. For redevmout, see ‘on tehelmorg, 7:11. The meaning is, 
‘To render the mind of the worshipper secure of pardon for sin, and 
to produce that quiet which was connected with a well grounded 
persuasion of this, and that moral purification which must accom- 
pany it... We have no one word to express all this in English. 1 
have come as near to it as I am able to do, in the version which 
I have given. : 

The whole verse shews very plainly, that our epistle was writ- 
ten while the temple rites were still practised ; consequently, be- 
‘fore A. D. 70. But by the phrase, roy xasoov cov éveornxora, the 
writer particularly alludes to the age then present, in which the 
new or Christian dispensation had begun. The whole sentence 
is as much as to say, ‘ The Jewish ritual, from the commencement 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 9, 10. 199 





of it down to the present moment, has never been, and still is not, 
any thing more than a type of the Christian dispensation, which 
has already commenced. All its oblations and sacrifices were in- 
effectual, as to removing the penalty due to sin in the sight of heav- 
en, or procuring real peace of conscience. 

10. Movov éni Bowmaoe. . . éxexeiueva, the ordinances of an ex- 
ternal nature had respect. only to meats, and drinks, and divers 
ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. A passage very 
difficult in respect to its grammatical construction. Many writers 
have referred dixacewpata to the dwoee xai Ovolus, mentioned in 
the preceding verse; and then have found difficulty enough, (as 
well they might), in accounting for it how oblations and sacrifices 
could consist in meats, and drinks, and various ablutions. 'To me 
it seems quite evident, that v. 10 is designed to signify something 
additional to that which is mentioned in v. 9; although the con- 
struction is asyndic, i. e. xa/ is omitted before udvoy. ‘Eni Bow- 
aoe... . Sanreouors, I understand as a clause qualifying dexavw- 
para, i.e. it stands in the place of an adjective designating where- 
in the dvxotmmata consisted ; while ougxo0g supplies the place of 
another adjective, denoting to what the dvxocaara had relation, 
viz. to the flesh or external part of man. Meats and drinks have 
respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dis- 
pensation ; and not (as some critics interpret the words) to the 
meats and drinks offered to the Lord. Most evidently, Samzcomoig 
refers to the ceremonial ablutions 0 the Jews, which had respect 
to external purification ; and Powmuaoe xai mouaoe seem plainly to 
respect the same kind of purity. Besides, all this agrees perfectly 
with the scope of the writer. He had denied that the penalty, due 
to sin in the sight of God, could be removed by any of the temple 
offerings, v.93 and in this verse, he denies that the moral expia- 
tion required could be effected, by any or all of the rites pertaining 
to external purification. Consequently, there was, according to 
him, nothing in the Jewish ritual, which could effect an atonement 
such as the sinner needed. 

Méyou xargov dvogGuocews énineiueva, sc. yoav. This clause, 
many interpreters have placed first in order, in the verse, in the 
translations which they have made; but this is unnecessary. It 
must be admitted, that the construction in this case is very diffi- 
cult, and far from being clear. The intention of the writer seems 


200 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 10. 











to be the best guide ; for, interpret as you please, the grammatical 
difficulties are about the same. I regard the whole, in this simple 
light. Vs. 8 and 9 mention the tabernacle, (which of course in- 
cludes the temple, for the latter was only a substitute of the for- 
mer), and declare that the same, with all its apparatus and rites 
connected with it, was only a xagufody, i. e. a symbol of something 
real and ultimate, under the new dispensation. Two particulars, 
or rather, two classes of things, belonging to the ancient ritual, now 
seem to strike the writer’s mind. First, the dwge zai Ovoiac offer- 
ed to God, v. 9; and secondly, the various meats and drinks, dis- 
tinguished into clean and unclean, to which men under the Leviti- 
cal law must have respect, and the divers ablutions which they 
must practise. ‘‘ The ordinances pertaining to the flesh,” says he, 
*‘which respect only meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, are 
imposed until the time of reformation,” i. e. they are all of a tem- 
porary nature, and therefore are plainly to be abolished. I regard 
the last part of this affirmation, viz. that which asserts the tempora- 
ry (and therefore inadequate) nature of meats and drinks and ablu- 
tions, as corresponding with the pj dureuevae xara ouveldnow 
réhevoue Tov Aargevovta of the 9th verse. Thus, both together 
declare the inadequacy and temporary nature of the ancient ritual, 
and lead the mind of the reader to expect a new one; which the 
writer goes on immediately to propose, in v. 11. 

Those who have referred duxecomoare encneiuever to won nai 
voila, have been greatly perplexéd in adjusting the reading of the 
word énvzéiueva; for in v. 9, we have dvvauevae (fem.) referring - 
to Ovota. They propose that we should either read duveuevar— 
éxoneimevat, or else Ouvaueve—éneysiveve, so as to make them 
agree. But all this difficulty arises from connecting dimacwuara 
with that to which it does not belong ; as we have seen above. 

Most Codices and versions read dvxocw mace, instead of dixecei- 
uare; but the latter is preferred by Knapp and others, and admit- 
ted to be of equal or nearly equal authority, by Griesbach ; and it 
seems to me to make better sense, and to afford a more easy con- 
struction, than duxaewpaoe. 

Kaigov dvog9woews plainly means, the time of the gospel dis- 
pensation, called yoovwr anoxaracracews, in Acts 3:21. Comp. 
Mal. 3: 1. 4: 5, 6. Is. 66: 22. 65:17. 51: 16. r 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 11. 201 





Thus much for the description of the earthly tabernacle and its sacred utensils, together 
with an exhibition of the inefficacy of the whole in respect to meeting the wants of sinners, and 
also an avowal of their temporary nature. They were intended only as the introduction to a 
new and better dispensation. ér, in v. 1, is the sign of protasis, and is the correlate of dé 
in v. 10, where the apodosis begins. All that follows v. 1, on to v. 10, is only a particular 
description of what is mentioned in general terms in v. 1, and is subjoined for the sake of illus- 
tration and impression. V. 10 is plainly the sequel to v. 1, and nearly related to it. 

The writer now procceds to shew, that the tabernacle in which Christ officiates, is 
OU FYELQOTOLTOS, not %0OMLZOG, like that of the Jews. The antithesis between the old and 
new tabernacles, their services, and the respective efficacy of them, is carried on, by the apos- 
tle, through the remainder of chap. IX., and down to chap. X. 19. 


11. Xocords dé nagayevousvos.... ayadav, but Christ being 
come, the high priest of future blessings. X@votos . . . magayevo- 
uévog is nominative to the verb eéo7AGe in v. 12. 

* Aoyregevs tov meddovtor ayabar, lit. a high priest of good 
things future, i. e. of future blessings. The meaning is, plainly, 
‘The high priest, who procures future blessings.’ The principle 
of interpretation is the same that is adopted in such phrases as 
the following ; viz. the God of peace, i. e. who procures or bestows 
peace; the God of consolation, i.e. who bestows consolation ; the 
God of grace, i. e. who bestows grace ; w@ros 7749 Cus, i. q. HeTOS 
tv Swany dove, etc. Christ is here called, the high priest who pro- 
cures future blessings, by way of comparison with the Jewish high 
priest, who was peoirys (8: 6), or éyyvog (7: 22), between God and 
the people, and was the medium through which blessings were pro- 
cured from God. 

Ava tng meiSovosg .... tH utiosws, through a greater and more 
perfect temple, not made with hands, that is not of this [material] 
creation. Sxnvy here, as in v. 2, most probably means, the outer 
apartment or court only of the heavenly temple. So we must un- 
derstand it, if we render dva through, as the best commentators and 
lexicographers do, in this case. But to give it material form and 
shape, would be nothing less than to make it yecoomo/ntos ; al- 
though the writer of our epistle expressly says, ‘it is ov y@vQ0- 
mointos. It is unnecessary, then, to inquire precisely what 
there is, in the heavenly world, which constituted, materialiter, this 
greater and more perfect outer sanctuary,-through which Jesus pass- 
ed, when so7nAOev éganaé sig ra wyea, v. 12. The comparison is 
made with the high priest of the Jews, who passed through the ou- 
ter sanctuary, when he entered into the inner one, upon the great 

VOL, II. 26 


202 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 1]. 





day of atonement. The probability is, that the writer compared, 
in his own mind, the visible heavens, (through which Jesus passed 
in his ascension on high, 4: 14. 6: 20. 8: 1, 2), with the vail which 
separated the outer sanctuary of the Jewish temple from the inner 
one; the clouds or sky, (which conceal the temple above from our 
view), being resembled to the vail of the inner temple. \ Be this as 
it may, he explicitly declares that he does not mean a material 
sanctuary, visible to the natural eye, and corresponding in this res- 
pect to that upon the earth; for he says, it was ov yecoonoinros. 
And lest this should not be sufficient to prevent misapprehension, 
he adds, ov ravrng 17¢ xtloews, i. e. not of the visible material cre- 
ation, or, not (like this creation) visible and material; which is 
plainly implied by ravrys. 

‘The version of dva by Dr. Schulz, fake, by virtue of), I 
am not able to comprehend. In what sense can it be said, that 
Christ eondder éganak elo ra ayon, aloviay AVrewow Edoamsvos, 
BY VIRTUE OF @ greater and more perfect tabernacle, that was not 
material? which is the same as to say, ‘ He entered into the ady- 
tum of the tabernacle above, by virtue of the same tabernacle.’ I 
do not aver, that this has no meaning; but I readily confess my 
inability to discover what the meaning is. It would be well for 
Dr. Schulz, who has appended so many interrogation and exclama- 
tion points, to extracts made by him from Storr’s version of our 
_ epistle, and from his notes upon it, to defend, or at least explain, 
such a version as that which gives.occasion to these remarks.. 

There is, indeed, another construction of dv, in this case, 
which, if it might be applied, would give a meaning that is tolera- 
ble. Ave is often put before the genitive of a noun which indi- 
cates the manner, or the circumstances, in which any thing exists, or 
takes place, or is effected ; as all the lexicons will shew. In 2 Cor. 
5: 10, the apostle says, ‘‘ We must all appear before the judgment 
seat of Christ, in order that every one may receive ra dv Gwuaros, 
[according to] the things done 1 the body.’’ But strictly consider- 
ed, dva does not signify place here ; for dua Gwuarog means, in a 
corporeal condition. Now,if we render the phrase in Heb. 9: 11 thus, 
in a greater and more perfect temple, we make dv indicate the place 
where simply. 'To render it thus, I find no sufficient authority ; for 
dca is used only to denote the place through which, or by which one 
passes. See Wahl, dua I. 1.a. And besides, the circumstances, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 11, 12. 203 


ee ee EE SS ee 


which attended Christ’s going into the most holy place, are noted 
in v. 12, so that it is hardly to be expected that they are to be found 
here. There, dvo is used in a way that is not at all uncommon; 
e. g. ‘Christ entered the eternal sanctuary, ov Ov aiuaros Toayawv 
xal pooxar, but dua rov idiov aiuaros. I cannot see, therefore, 
how dva meifovos xal rehecoregas oxnv7g can be construed in the 
way of indicating the circumstances in which, or the means by 
which, Christ entered the eternal sanctuary. Of course, dva, in 
the case under consideration, must, after all, be construed through ; 
and be understood as having reference to the passage through the 
RODIN OxNVN, in order to enter the deuzéga oxnvy: 

12. Ovdé dv aiuaros... To ayva, not with the blood of goats and 
of bullocks, but with his own blood, he entered once for all into the 
sanctuary. The Jewish high priest, on the great day of atone- 
ment, carried with him into the inner sanctuary, first, the blood of 
a bullock, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, Lev. 16: 14 ; then, 
the blood of a goat, which he also sprinkled upon the mercy seat, 
Lev. 16: 15. Christ did not carry with him the blood of bullocks 
and goats, into the heavenly sanctuary, in order to make atone- 
ment; but he presented his own blood there, in order to make 
expiation. But this is not to be understood literally; for as the 
sanctuary itself was ov ravryg TIS “TiDEWS, OF OU yelgomtointos, so 
the Saviour’s blood, which was shed upon Calvary, was not literally 
taken and carried by him into the heavenly temple. All that is 
material, is only a figure or emblem of that which is spiritual or 
heavenly. That dva before aiuarog means with, cum, 2, is quite 
clear from the nature of the case, and from comparison with Lev. 
16: 14, 15. 2 Cor. 2:4. Rom. 2:27. 14:20. 8: 25. Heb. 12: 1. 
Aé is adversative, but, when it follows a negative particle, as ovde is 
here. ‘Zganaé means here, once for all, once only. 

Ainviay Avrowow edgauevos, obtaining eternal redemption. 
Evvoauevos is not an Attic form of the I aor. middle. It seems to 
be an Alexandrine form, made after the analogy of the 2 aor. EVOG.; 
see Winer’s Gram. § 9. d. Evgioxm often means, to obtain or ac- 
quire any thing. Here, the act of entering the eternal sanctuary 
and presenting his own blood, is considered as the means, by which 
the eternal redemption of sinners is obtained or accomplished. 
Aurowsrs, in the New Testament, means, liberation or redemption ; 
i. e. liberation from the penalty due to sin, or redemption from the 


204 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 12, 15. 


bondage and penalty of sin. It is called aéwviay, because the re- 
demption obtained is eternal in its consequences, or because it is 
liberation from a penalty which is eternal, and introduction to a 
state of endless happiness. The Avrgworg effected by Christ, needs 
no repetition; when once made, the consequences are eternal ; as 
we may see in 9: 24—28. 10: I, 2, 11—14. 

13. Li yoo tO aiua.... xexowvmpevors, for if the blood of 
bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. 
The blood of bulls and of goats, as employed for the purpose of 
purification or expiation, is described in Lev. 16: 14, 15. It was 
also shed, on other occasions, as a sin offering, Lev. 1: 2—5, 10, 
11. Tuvowyr, in our verse, corresponds with uooymy inv. 12. Both 
words mean, a bullock, or a beeve; and the Septuagint employ 
both Greek words to translate the Hebrew 35 and 4p. E. g. 
zavoos for 33% in Gen. 49: 6, and for 75 in Gen. 32: 16 {15]; 
moozos for 34u in Prov. 15: 17, and for 3 in Lev. 4: 3-5. 

Sn000¢ dapakemo x. t. 4. See an account of the manner. in 
which these ashes were prepared, in Num. 19: 2—9. In the last 
verse, the ashes are directed to be kept for a water of uncleanness, 
m32 725, 1. e. to be mixed with water which was to be sprinkled 
on the unclean, that they might be purified. It is also called, in 
the same verse, NNN, a sin-offering, or (as our English version 
has it) a purification from sin, meaning, a means of purification. 
So in Num. 19: 13, 20, the person who had defiled himself, and 
neglected to have the 32 3 sprinkled upon him, is pronotinced 
unclean. Storr applies davrifovee to aiua, as well as to o0d0c. . 
But, (setting aside the difficulty of the grammatical construction 
as to concord), it does not appear, that the sprinkling of blood upon 
the unclean was a usual part of the Levitical rites of purification. 
The blood was sprinkled upon the mercy seat, and on the horns of 
the altar, and poured out before the altar. Nor is there any need 
of the construction which he adopts ; for the sense is unembarass- 
ed, if we follow the usual grammatical construction. “Payrigovoe 
is indeed feminine, and ox0dd¢ masculine. But such anomalies in 
concord are very common in Hebrew, see Gram. § 189. 5, 6. Be- 
. sides, as the latter noun here (dauadewe) is feminine, it happens, 
as in some other cases of the like nature, that the grammatical con- 
cord, as to gender, is regulated by the latter of two nouns in regi- 
men. . 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 13, 14. 205 





‘Ayvater .... xatagornta, sanctifies in respect to external pu- 
rification. “Ayacer, used in respect to external rites, denoted that 
the person rendered aytalouevos, was clean or purified from all 
ritual uncleanness, i.e. that he had performed all the necessary 
rites of external purification, so that he could draw near to God, as 
a worshipper, in a regular manner. Thus much, our author avers, 
was accomplished by the ceremonial rites of the law. If so, then 
greater efficacy is to be attributed to the sacrifice made by Christ ; 
as he proceeds to declare. 

14. Tloow wadhov .... Zo0ymv, how much more shall the blood 
of Christ, who, in an eternal spiritual nature, offered himself with- 
out spot to God, purify our consciences from dead works. In vs. 
11, 12, Christ is represented as entering the heavenly sanctuary, 
with his own blood, in order to expiate the sins of his people, or to 
procure Aurgworr for them, i.e. deliverance from the penalty of the 
divine law. It is, then, in the heavenly world, in the tabernacle 
not made with hands, that the offering of our great high priest is 
made. There he has presented himself, in his heavenly or glorified 
state, in his eternal spiritual condition, or, possessed of an eternal 
spiritual nature, as the victim that had been slain, 10: 10—12. 1: 
3. 7:27. Rev. 5: 9. Eph. 5: 2; and there his blood, that had been 
shed, is virtually offered to make atonement; not literally, but 
spiritually, i.e. in a manner congruous with the spiritual temple 
in which he ministers. 

Nearly to this purpose did Theophylact, long ago, explain this 
difficult passage. His words are, ‘ Ovx aytegevg tig mooonveyne 
TOV YOLOTOY, GAA aHUTOS EaUTOY Hai OV OLa MOOS, WES ai Domadets, 
Ghha Ova mVEV MATOS aiwvioD, wore Kal THY yaouY nal THY 
anokutowory deavmviferr, i. e. “no high priest made an offering of 
Christ, but he of himself; and this, not by fire, as the heifers [were 
offered], but by an eternal Spirit, so that he might render grace 
and redemption eternal.” See Excursus XVIII. 

‘Euvrov mooonveyxe. The apostle seems to use ope, éavror, 
and ofa, as equivalent in regard to the sacrifice which Christ of- 
fered; see and compare Heb. 1: 3. 10: 10. 9: 12, 14. 10: 19. 9: 
26. The reason of these different expressions, may be found in 
the nature of the Jewish ritual. When the blood of an animal was 
presented before God, in order to make atonement, the body was 
also consumed by fire, so that the shoe was’ offered in sacrifice. 


206 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 14. 





See Lev. 4: 6—12, 17—21. The use of either of the three words 
Gviuo, Exvtdov, aiua, as designating the sacrifice of Christ, implies 
all that would be designated by employing the whole of them; i. e. 
when his blood was shed, his body was slain, i. e. he himself was 
slain. 

” Awomuor, spotless, an evident allusion to the Jewish victims, 
which were required to be without spot or blemish. No other could 
be accepted of God. So Christ, who was ‘holy, harmless, unde- 
filed, and separate from sinners, 7: 26, was amor, i.e. a perfect 
victim, a lawful or acceptable one. 

Katagvet tiv ovveldnow yuwv ano verowv toywv, shall purify 

our conscience from deadly works. Kadaouei is the Attic future 
for xaPagicer. Svveidnow does not mean simply, the conscience 
as a faculty of the soul, but the mind or conscious power of man, i. €. 
the internal or moral man. Nexoov in such cases usually means, 
deadly, i.e. having a deadly, destructive, condemning power. This 
may be the meaning here; and so it is more usually taken, and so 
T have translated it. But as in v. 13, the writer had made mention 
of the ashes of a heifer, as one of the means of effecting external 
purification ; and since, in Num. 19: 11—-19, these ashes are de- 
scribed as particularly intended to cleanse those who had been pol- 
luted by the touch of dead bodies; may it not be supposed, that 
there is an allusion in the term vexowy here to that fact? Dead 
works, in this sense, would be such as pollute the soul, as dead 
bodies did the persons of the Jews: Dead works, then, may mean, 
sinful works ; for it is from the pollution of sin, that the blood of. 
Jesus cleanses. re 

Eig 10 harosvery Gen Covet, so that we may serve the living 
God ; another allusion to the Jewish ritual. Before persons, un- 
der the ancient dispensation, could present themselves in the pres- 
ence of the Lord acceptably, they must have been subjected to cer- 
emonial purification.. What this prefigured, the blood of Jesus 
effects. It takes away the sinner’s moral pollution, i.e. Christ re- 
moves the penalty to which he was obnoxious, and sanctifies, by the 
Spirit, the soul of the penitent sinner; and thus he may draw near 
to God, and offer him an acceptable service. He is clean, in a 
sense as much higher than the Israelite was, who had purified him- 
self only externally, as the efficacy of Jesus’ blood is greater than 
that of goats and bullocks, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 15. 20% 


oe ee ee 

15. Kai dud rovro dvadyxng navy .... xAngovouias, on this 
account also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that, 
his death having taken place for the sins [committed] under the for- 
mer covenant, they who have been called might receive the promised 
blessing of the eternal inheritance. A passage about which much 
difficulty has arisen, and a variety of interpretations been proposed. 
Ave tovro, I understand as referring to the sentiment in v. 14, 
The sentiment stands thus; ‘ As Jewish sacrifices rendered the of- 
ferer externally clean ; so the blood of Christ purifies the moral or 
internal man, and removes the consequences of sin. On this ac- 
count (dva rov70), i. e. because the sacrifice of Christ produces an 
effect such as the Jewish sacrifices did not, he may be justly call- 
ed the mediator of a new covenant, differing greatly from the old.’ 
Comp. Heb. 8: 6—8, 13. 7: 15-19. 

AvoPyjxung nays wecirns means, the author of a new covenant, 
or the internuntius, 8372, who (so to speak) negotiated such a 
covenant between God and man. See Gal. 3: 19, where Moses is 
called the weoirng of the former covenant. 

‘But of what avail,’ the Hebrews would very naturally inquire 
here ‘can this new covenant be, to all those who have lived in for- 
mer ages, under the Mosaic dispensation? You affirm that the 
ritual of the Mosaic law had no power to remove the spiritual pen- 
alty of guilt; do then the patriarchs, and prophets, and just men 
of past ages, still lie under the imputation of the sins which they 
committed? By no means, answers the apostle. A new and bet- 
ter covenant than the Mosaic one has been instituted, under which 
real spiritual pardon for offences is obtained, which enures to 
them, as well as to us at the present time. 

“Onwe x. t. A, so that the death of Christ having taken place, 
for redemption from the punishment due to transgressions committed 
under the ancient covenant, those who have been called might be made 
partakers of promised eternal blessings. Aaverov means, the death 
of Christ. Tav nagafasewy is governed in the genitive by force 
of ax in composition with Avrowocy ; and it means here, the effects 
of tr ansgression, i.e. punishment, penalty; just as the Hebrew 
non and 772 mean, not only sin, but the penalty due to it. O8 
nexknuevoe (like éxAexro/) means, those who are called, invited, viz. 
to an actual participation of the heavenly inheritance. It is of 
course understood, that only those who are pious have such an in- 


208 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 15, 16. 


heritance promised to them. Comp. zAjoews éxovgaviov uéroyor, 
in Heb. 3:1. Oi xexdnuévor here refers to just men, of the times 
which preceded the gospel dispensation or new covenant; as the 
antecedent member of the verse clearly shews. 779 adwviov “in- 
Qovoulas, as a genitive, depends on énayyshiay, not on xexAnuévor, 
although such a separation is somewhat unusual; see on yv. 16, 
Oavaroyv.... dvedeucvov. “Enayyehlay is best translated here, 
as in 6: 12, 15, 17. 10: 36. 11: 13. etc., promised blessings, or prof- 
Ffered good. The inheritance is called eternal (aéwviov), because 
the blessings procured by a Saviour’s blood, for those who lived 
under the ancient dispensation, are of a spiritual eternal nature ; 
see v. 12. Such blessings could not be attained by any of the rites 
of the old covenant ; it is only by virtue of what is done under the 
new, by Jesus, that the ancient worthies came to the possession of 
them. 

The sentiment which this verse contains, respecting the effica- 
cy of atoning blood in regard to the sins of preceding ages, has an 
exact parallel in Rom. 3: 25, where the blood of Christ is declared, 
by Paul, to have procured z7jv nageoey tay ng0yeyovotmy auaoTy- 
pactwy, the remission of sins committed in preceding times; as is 
plain from the antithesis, zw viv xacow, in the following verse. 
Both passages compared, form a striking coincidence of a peculiar 
sentiment, which is no where else so clearly and directly asserted. 

16. "Onov yao dcadnun .... Otadsuevov, for where there is a 
testament, (i. e. where a testament hecomes fully. so, LoyvEl, is valid, 
the death of the testator must take place. The occasion of here 
introducing dvadnxn, inthe new sense of testament, is stated in 
the summary prefixed to chap. 4: 14, and need not be again re- 
peated. The whole comparison of testaments (dvaOjxav) among 
men, which confer a valid title to an inheritance, vs. 16, 17, most 
evidently springs from the mention of Christ’s death, in the preced- 
ing verse, and of the confirmation thereby of the believer’s title to 
a heavenly inheritance. It is as much as to say, ‘ Brethren, regard 
it not as strange, that the death of Christ should have given assur- 
ance of promised blessings to believers—-should have ratified the 
new dvadsxn, of which he is the author; other dva@jxae are rati- 
fied by the death of their respective testators, and only in this way.’ 
And then, he goes on to shew, that even the ancient covenant, 
though it could not be called a dva97xn, in all respects, so well as 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 16, 17. » 209 


RU SE Eee 
the new one, still was ratified in a manner not unlike the new one, 
viz. by blood, the emblem of death, vs. 18-—22. 

As the mode of illustration or comparison, in vs. 16, 17, depends 
entirely on the sense of the Greek word dtvad7xn, and is not at all 
supported by any meaning of the Hebrew n793, it must be plain, 
that our epistle was originally written in Greek, and not in He- 
brew, as some of the ancient, and a few of the modern, critics 
have supposed. 

@oso0as, in the sense of intervening, happening, taking place, 
(which must necessarily be attached to it here), has no exact paral- 
lel, that I can find, either in classic or sacred usage. It is, as to 
such a meaning, a true anak Asyouevoy. 

If the reader finds any difficulty in admitting, in v. 15, the 
wide separation of éxayyehiay and zxAngovoutas, he will now per- 
ceive a separation of the same nature, in respect to Yavaroy and 
dvaPeuevou, about the relation of which no possible doubt can be 
rationally entertained. 

17. Acodrxn yao int vexgois BePata, for a testament is valid, 
in respect to those who are dead. "Eni is not unfrequently employ- 
ed to denote after, viz. in respect to time; e.g. Acts 11: 19, emt 
Sreqeven, after the time of Stephen, as Wahl renders it, and so 
Mark 6: 52, éat rote dotows, after the loaves, i. e. the miraculous 
feeding of several thousands with them. So in Phil. 3: 12, ég’ @, 
i. e. ex quo tempore, as Brettschneider renders it. But these cases 
are not altogether clear. In classic authors, however, éné TOUTOIS 
means, postea; so éni rugl ty Aavdamide, after Dandamis be- 
came blind, Lucian in Tox. See Vigerus, p. 620. Matthiae, § 
584. In accordance with this usage, many critics have translated 
the phrase under consideration thus ; @ testament is valid after men 
are dead, or, after death. This, no doubt, gives the general senti- 
ment of the passage ; but, after all, the explanation of ént VEXOGIS 
in this way, is somewhat forced, and I prefer that giyen in the 
translation, which conveys the same sense, and is not exposed to 
any doubts with regard to usage. 

"Emei... . Ovadéeuevos, since it is of no avail, while the testator 
is living. Minors is stronger than the simple negative 7 ; and 
one might well translate, since tt 2s of no avail at all. *[oyver, 
here first expressed, seems to be implied after dcadyxn, in v. 16. 

The amount of the comparison in vs. 16, 17, is, as before stat- 

VOL. I. 27 


210 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 17, 18. 


ed, that as dvaG7xae among men are ratified by death, so did the 
death of Christ, (which the writer had just mentioned, v. 15), ratify 
the new dva1xy which he had made, and give a valid title to the 
heirs, who were to receive the inheritance. 

18. “O@ev oud .... éynexourvotos, whence, neither the first 
[dvad7}x] was ratified without blood. 

"Oder, whence, i.e. seeing that a dvaOynxyn must be ratified by 
the death of the testator, and that the new dva07xn has been rati- 
fied by the death of Christ, so as to make sure the inheritance to 
believers, v. 15; therefore 7 mewry etc. The meaning is, that 
since the new testament (xotvn dvadynxn) was, like other testa- 
ments, to be rendered valid by the death of the testator, therefore 
the malar dvadrj27, JUN M2, which was the prototype and 
emblem of the new testament, was itself confirmed, and all the ap- 
paratus attached to it consecrated, by blood, the emblem of death. 
The writer does not mean to say, that dvaOjxn, in the sense of 
testament, can be appropriately used to designate the ancient cov- 
enant; but he means to aver, that as the xawvy dvadx7x could be 
appropriately enough called so, and as the death of Christ was to 
sanction it, therefore the ancient dcw9xxy prefigured this, by the 
use of consecrating blood. In other words, as almost every thing 
attached to the mahaca dvad1)xn was consecrated to God and ren- 
dered acceptable to him, by being sprinkled with blood, and the 

dua xn itself was ratified in the same way; so, under the xe 

dvatyj2zn, the blood of Christ only eonsecrates all things and: ren- 

ders them acceptable to God, and his death has fully ratified the | 
dvejxy which he made,. 

The resemblance between the ancient dva%1x and the new 
one, is plainly not entire. Moses, the weoirng of the ancient one, 
did not ratify it by his death; for his death is never represented 
by the Scriptures in such a light. But as the new dsa92)xn was, 
in respect to the death of its weoizys, to differ from the old one ; 
so, (our author means to say), the old dvadxjxn, which was in its 
nature typical or emblematical, did prefigure this very thing, by the 
use of blood; i. e. the old covenant resembled the new testament, 
as much as the nature of the case permitted. 

Tlowrn agrees with dvedjxn understood. “Fyxexatvecrac, to 
initiate, to consecrate, to dedicate, i. e. by appropriate rites, to de- 
clare a thing which is already completed to be now ready for its 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 18, 19. 211 


uses, and to devote or dedicate it to those uses. The sprinkling of 
blood upon the book of the law, and upon the people, was the rite 
performed by Moses, when he consecrated the book of the law as 
their statute book, and them as publicly and solemnly bound to ob- 
serve its precepts. 

19. AudynPetons yao naons .... 70 how, for when all the com- 
mandment, according to the law, idl been recited by Moses to all the 
people. The maone évtodng, to which reference is here made, are 
the statutes contained in Ex. xx—xxin. These Moses first recit- 
ed memoriter to the people, after they had been communicated to 
him by the Lord, at Sinai, Ex. 24: 3. He then wrote them down, 
Ex. 24: 4, and afterwards, on occasion of solemnly renewing the 
covenant on the part of the people to obedience, he again recited 
them from the book of the law (m4 37 pd), Ex. 24:7. Kara 
vouov most probably means here, according to the written law, i.e. 
just as they were in the book of the law. But vouoy may refer to 
a command which Moses received, to communicate to the people 
the laws given to him, although this command is only implied, but 
not expressed in the Scripture ; in which case the mesning would 
be, that agreeably to the divine command, Moses read} | the law to 
the assembled nation. 

AaBouv ro aiuae... éoéavreoe, taking the blood of bullocks and 
of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both 
the book and all the people. This passage has occasioned no small 
perplexity to commentators ; inasmuch as Moses, in his history of 
renewing the covenant of the people, in Ex. xxtv., has said noth- 
ing of the blood of goats ; nothing, of the water and scarlet wool 
and hyssop ; nothing, of sprinkling the book of the law with blood. 
Whence then did the writer obtain these circumstances? That 
they were not matters of new revelation to him, seems pretty evi- 
dent; for he plainly makes an appeal to circumstances, which he 
takes it for granted are well known to the Hebrews whom he ad- 
dresses, and about which, if he were to commit an error of state- 
ment, all his readers would be revolted. 

1. The blood of goats. In Ex. 24: 5, it is said that Moses 
sent young men, who offered burnt offerings (n>¥), and sacrificed 
sacrifices, peace offerings (n2>U o°MNA1) to Jehovah, even bullocks, 
(0°75). Now, although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is 
quite probable, that the m>¥ on this occasion were goats; for >¥ 


212 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. 


is a holocaust, i. e. an offering entirely consumed by fire ; while the 
bv3>w were mostly eaten by the offerers. That goats were used 
for all kinds of sacrifices, as well as bullocks, is quite evident 
from mere inspection of the Levitical law. E. g. goats are named 
as an 9>y, Lev. 1: 10. 4: 24, 28 et alibi. “It is altogether pro- 
bable, then, that the holocausts or m>y, mentioned in Ex. 24:5 
as offered on the occasion of renewing the covenant, were goats ; 
and were of course understood by a Jewish reader to be such, in- 
asmuch as the D‘72>W only are affirmed to have been bullocks. 

2. The water, scarlet wool, and hyssop. That water was used 
as well as blood, in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly im- 
plied in Lev. 14: 4—7 compared with Lev. 14: 49—52. Num. 19: 
18. Ps. 51: 7. Ezek. 36: 25. The scarlet wool, (mydin 3B scar- 
let), was connected with a branch of hyssop (251%), in order to 
make a convenient instrument for receiving and sprinkling the 
blood and water. It is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in Ex. 
XXxIv.; but it is doubtless implied ; for this was the common instru- 
ment by which the rite of sprinkling was performed. So in Ex. 
12: 7, direction is simply given to sprinkle the door posts of the 
Israelites with blood; and afterwards, in v. 22, it is mentioned, 
that this was to be done with a bunch of hyssop. So in Lev. 14: 4— 
7, the nzbin "3, 1 €. Eovov xoxxevoy, and the hyssop, are mention- 
ed as employed in the office of sprinkling ; and again, in Lev. 14: 
49—52. The hyssop is also mentioned in Num. 19: 18. Ps. 51: 
7. It may well be presumed, that the reason why the writer of 
our epistle, and the Hebrews of his time, supposed that Moses 
made use of the water and hyssop and scarlet wool, in the lustra- 
tion of the people, when the covenant was renewed, was because 
these were employed in the lustrations where sprinkling was _per- 
formed, on other occasions. ‘The convenience of the instrument 
in question, and the nature of the case, would very naturally lead to 
such an opinion; and who can doubt that it is well grounded? 

3. The book of the law. Because nothing is said, in Ex. 24: 
3—8, respecting the sprinkling of the -book, many commentators, 
e. g. Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Storr, and others, construe @vro té 
70 BuBdiov with AaBwr 10 aiue, i.e. taking the blood .... and al- 
80 the book of the law. So far as such a construction of the parti- 
cle zé itself is concerned, this might perhaps be allowed; for zé is 
sometimes employed, when it is not preceded by xed or dé, in the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. 213 





clause immediately antecedent ; as in Acts 2: 33. To justify the 
method of interpretation now in question, Storr appeals to Heb. 9: 
1 and 12:2. But in the former case, r¢ is preceded by xa: ; and 
the latter is a-case where two verbs are connected. But in our 
verse, xaé follows @efAlov, and seems necessarily to connect it with 
mavea tov daoy. But to say of Moses, AaBov.... mavta tov ha- 
ov, will not be contended for. Michaelis, Heinrichs, Dindorf, Er- 
nesti, and others, agree with the interpretation which I have given. 
Indeed, zai and ré seem to be as necessarily related here, as et 
and que are in Latin; and, in fact, they commonly sustain the same 
relation to each other. As to manuscripts, only one omits xa after 
G.Bitov; and we are obliged, therefore, by the laws of criticism to 
retain it, whatever difficulties it may occasion to the interpreter. 

In regard to the fact itself, viz. that Moses did sprinkle the 
book with blood, no intimation of it is given in Ex. 24: 3--8. 
Yet nothing can be more probable, than that such was the fact. 
Aaron, and his sons, and their garments, were sprinkled with blood, 
when consecrated to the priests’ office, Ex. 29: 19-—-21. The blood 
of sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar, Ex. 29: 16. Lev. 1: 5, 
11. 3: 2, 13; also before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. 4: 6, 17; 
comp. Lev. 6: 27. 7: 14. 8: 15, 19, 24, 30. 9: 12, 18, et alibi. 
Philo, (de Vita Mosis B. p. 675), has a passage which speaks of 
all the various apparatus of the tabernacle being anointed with ho- 
ly oil, and the vestments of the priests being sprinkled with blood. 
So Josephus, also, speaks of sprinkling the garments of Aaron and 
his sons with afuatos tay teQuuevewv, the blood of the slain beasts, 
and with spring water, and holy chrism. Lib. V. 6. 6. p. 334. 
edit. Havercamp. All this serves to shew how common this rite 
of sprinkling with blood was, in the Jewish ritual; so common, 
that the writer of our epistle seems, with those whom he addressed, 
to have considered it a matter of course, that when the people 
were sprinkled with blood, at the time of renewing their covenant 
to keep the precepts contained in the book of the law, Ex. 24: 8, 
the book itself, like all the sacred apparatus of the temple, was also 
sprinkled in like manner. Nothing could be more natural. The 
people were consecrated to observe the statutes of the book; and 
the book was consecrated, as containing that sacred code of laws 
which they were bound to obey. 

If however, after all, one is not satisfied that Paul drew his con- 


214 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. 

a> :. nee OM os yO! ed via a en 
clusions from the analogies and probabilities just stated, he may 
easily suppose that tradition among the Jews had preserved the 
remembrance of the particulars described in our verse, on account 
of the very solemn and important nature of the transaction, with 
which they are connected. It would be easy to suppose, with 
some commentators, that these particulars were suggested in a 
miraculous way, by the Holy Spirit, to the mind of the writer. But 
this solution of the difficulty is not a probable one; because the 
writer evidently touches upon circumstances here, which he takes 
it for granted his readers will at once recognize and admit. If so, 
then these things must have already been matters of common opin- 
zon among the Hebrews ; and consequently were not now first sug- 
gested to the writer of our epistle, in a miraculous way. At all 
events, there can be no serious difficulty in the case. The fact 
that Ex. 24: 3--8 does not mention the particulars in question, can 
be no more proof that they did not take place, than the fact that 
the Evangelists have not recorded the words of Christ, ‘It is more 
blessed to give than to receive,” would prove that he did not utter 
them. Whether Paul and the Hebrews knew these things by tra- 
dition, or believed them from analogical reasoning, cannot be im- 
portant. Enough that they were facts, and were appealed to as 
such by the writer, with full confidence that they would be recog- 
nised by his readers. 

To illustrate the principle, de minimis non curat lex, it may 
be remarked, that Paul says simply; Aa@av to aiua; Moses, that 
“he took half of the blood; Ex. 24: 6.” But surely, if he did the 
latter, he did the former. ‘Such expressions, no where either in 
sacred or profane writers, are to be tortured, in order to extract 
from them a metaphysical exactness; verba—ne resecanda ad vi- 
yum. 

In the like manner, I interpret wevre cov Aady. How, it has 
been asked, could he sprinkle three millions of people, with the 
blood of a few goats and bullocks? In such a way I would an- 
swer, as ‘all Judea and Jerusalem went out to John, to be baptized 
of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, Matt. 3: 5 seq.” 
‘Must we now understand by this, that all the infants, the non com- 
potes mentis, mutes, the sick, the infirm, the aged, all females, or 
literally all adult males, repaired to John, to be baptized, and did 
all (infants and mutes with the rest) confess their sins to him? 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19, 20. 215 





If not, then there is no difficulty in construing navra TOY Aaor, in 
the case now under consideration. Moses sprinkled blood on the 
multitude of the people, I take to be the simple meaning of the wri- 
ter ; not that all and every individual was actually and personally 
sprinkled.. Some were actually sprinkled; and these, being of the 
multitude, were representatives of the whole. Nothing is more 
common than to attribute to a body of men collectively, what be- 
longs, strictly considered, only to certain individuals of that body. 
Thus what the government of this country do, the Americans are 
said to do. 

20. Aégywr’ covr0 to aiua....0 8206, saying, This is the 
blood of the covenant, which God has enjoined upon you. Another 
instance, in which the /etter of the Old Testament is forsaken, and 
the sense merely retained. The original in Ex. 24: 8 is, min 
p22) AAMT NID WA Nap, behold, the blood of the cove- 
nant which God has made with 4 you. But zim means, see here, or, 
see this, and is equivalent to rovro used as a demonstrative. The 
verb m > is rendered by the Seventy, dvedexo; by our author, 
éverelhato. ‘The reason of this probably is, that mya in Ex. 24: 
8 means, statutes, laws, as it evidently refers to the preceding 
statutes, in Ex. xx-—xx1i. God commanded that the people should 
observe these ; and with reference to this injunction, our author 
says, évetelhato. 

To aina r7¢ dvadnxns means, the blood by which the covenant, 
or, assent on the part of the people to the laws proposed, or rather, 
their promise to observe them, Ex. 24: 7, was ratified. So com- 
mon was it, among the Hebrews, to ratify engagements by the 
blood of animals slain, that the usual idiom of the language is, 
M72 2, fo cut a covenant, i. e. to sanction one by cutting an 
animal into two pieces, and passing between them. See Gen. 15: 
10. 31: 54, Jer. 34: 18. Ephrem Syrus testifies, that the Chalde- 
ans had the same usage, Opp. I. p. 161; as also Hacourt does, in 
respect to the Arabians, Histoire de Madagascar, p. 98. 360. The 
meaning of such a transaction seems evidently to be, that the per- 
sons who make the engagements, by passing beeneen the dissever- 
ed parts of the slain animal, virtually say, ‘If we preserve not our 
engagement faithfully, and without violation, then let us be cut in 
pieces, like the animal between whose dissevered parts we now 
pass.’ ‘The sprinkling of blood on the people, Ex. 24:8, was a 


216 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 20——22. 


solemnity of a similar nature. By it they were also ceremonially 
purified, and consecrated to God. 

Q1. Koi ryy oxnvyy.... éG6avrioe, the tabernacle, also, and 
all the vessels for service, he sprinkled in like manner with blood. 
Kai, although a kind of copulative here, still indicates another 
transaction different from that related in v.19; for when the peo- 
ple were sprinkled with blood, the tabernacle was not built, nei- 
ther were the oxevy Aecroveyias yet made. The setting up and con- 
secration of the tabernacle, with its vessels, is related in Ex. x1. ; 
yet nothing is there related of sprinkling them with blood, but only 
of anointing them with holy oil, Ex. 40: 9—11. In the like man- 
ner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons is there spoken of, 
as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of their office in 
the tabernacle, Ex. 40: 12—15; while nothing is said at all of their 
being sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Ex. 29:20, 21 and 
Lev. 8: 24, 30, we shall see that it is certain, that Aaron and his 
sons were sprinkled with blood, as well as anointed with oil. In 
like manner it is probable, that the tabernacle and its furniture 
were sprinkled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in 
Ex. xt. Josephus says, ‘‘ Both the tabernacle and the vessels per- 
taining to it, [Moses sprinkled and purified] with oil prepared as I 
have described, and with the blood of bulls and rams that were 
slain, one of each kind alternately, every day, Antigq. III. 8. § 6.” 
This seems to indicate, that Josephus had the same view as Paul, 
in regard to purifying the tabernacle. The verbs in brackets, in 
the above translation, are drawn from the preceding clause, where 
we find é¢¢auvev agayvioas, purifying he sprinkled. They belong 
to the sentence here translated, by implication. 

In regard to the fact itself, we may observe, that it is rendered 
quite probable from analogy. Then as to a knowledge of it by 
our author, nothing more is necessary, than the supposition that 
tradition had conveyed the knowledge of this, as well as of many 
other facts, down to the time of Paul. The writer evidently ap- 
peals to facts, which were believed by the Hebrews in general 
whom he was addressing ; and facts which, although not stated in 
‘ the Old Testament, are by no means improbable, and which no 
one surely has it in his power to contradict. 

22. Kal oysdov év aiuare.... vouor, indeed, every thing is, 
according to the law, purified by blood. Kai, imo, vero, yea, indeed. 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 22, 23. Q17 





Dyz00v navra, and not mavte absolutely and simply ; for some 
things were purified by water, Lev. 16: 26, 28. Num. 31:24; some 
by fire and water, Num. 31: 22, 23. But the exceptions were few, 
in which shedding of blood, or sprinkling of blood, was not requir- 
ed, in order to effect ceremonial purity. See on v. 19. 

Koi yoois aivarexyvolas ov yiverae aqeocs, and without shed- 
ding of blood, there is no remission [of sins]. See Lev. 4: 2—6, 13 
—17, 22—25, 27—30 and 31, 35. Under the Mosaic law, not 
every transgression could be atoned for ; consequently, remission of 
the penalty which the law inflicted could not, in some cases, be 
obtained. See Num. 15: 30, 31. It was only he that sinned 
through a degree of ignorance or inadvertency, who could bring 
his sin and trespass-offering, Num. 15: 27, 29; for cases of a dif- 
ferent nature, comp. Lev. 4: 2, 13, 22, 27. The nxwn and DUN, 
sin and trespass, were atoned for, in a civil and ecclesiastical point 
of view, by appropriate sacrifices, which bore the like names. But 
in this case, the remission was only from a temporal penalty or 

‘calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone for 
sin, as viewed by the righteous governor of the world. Such the 
nature of the case seems plainly to be; and so the writer of our 
epistle has expressly declared, in chap. 10: 4. God, as the king and 
head of the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty, which 
the Jewish Jaw inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But 
this had respect merely to the present world, and not to the accoun- 
tability of transgressors, before the tribunal of the universe in the 
world above. Even temporal forgiveness, however, could not be 
obtained ywoig aiuatexyvoias. It was thus, that these vmode/yuo- 
ta shadowed forth, to the ancient church, the necessity of atoning 
blood, which possessed a higher virtue than that of beasts, in order 
to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened in respect to 
afuture world. So the writer proceeds to tell us, in the next verse. 

23. “Avayxn obv.... tavras, since then the images of heaven- 
ly things must needs be purified by such [rites], the heavenly things 
themselves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. Meu 
is here the mere sign of protasis. “Ymodsiyuata, copies, effigies, 
images, resemblances, likenesses ; meaning the tabernacle and tem- 
ple, with all their sacred utensils, etc. See on 8: 5. Ty év rots 
ouvgavorg means, the spiritual objects of the heavenly world, of which 
the tabernacle, with all its apparatus and services, was only a sym- 

VOL. II. 28 


218 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 23. 











bol. See on 8:5. Tovrocg designates such things, i.e. such rites 
and means of purification, as had been described in the preceding 
context. KadagileoOar refers to the ceremonial purification of 
the temple and its sacred utensils; e. g. of the most holy place, 
Lev. 16:15, 16; of the altar, Lev. 16: 18, Ex. 29: 36, 37; of the 
tabernacle, Lev. 16: 33, 20. This was to be done, because the 
Israelites, sinful and impure, profaned these sacred things by their 
approach, Lev. 16: 19. 15: 31. Num. 19: 19, 20. And this being 
done, God vouchsafed his presence in the tabernacle, and promised 
to dwell among the Israelites, Ex. 29: 43—46. All this was sym- 
bolical of the heavenly sanctuary and sacrifice. God permits sin- 
ners to hope for pardon and approach to him, only when they are 
sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus; and what was done 
on earth as a symbol, has been done in the heavenly world in reality, 
i, e. So as actually to procure spiritual pardon, and restoration to 
the divine favour. 

Avra Oi ta énovoavin .... tavtag. Aé is the sign of apodo- 
sts merely. It may be translated, therefore, then; but there is no 
need of rendering it, as our language does not demand like signs of 
protasis and apodosis with the Greek. "Zimovgareu means the oxnv7) 
adndivn, jv ennkev 0 xdovos, 8:2, i. q. 7) OxNYH OV yeLeonointos, 
9: 11. But how could the heavenly tabernacle xadagileodac, 
be purified? The grammatical construction of v. 23, certainly re- 
quires us to supply this verb in the latter clause, since it is express- 
ed in the former. But the word, ofcourse, can be here used only 
in a figurative manner ; for the énovearee are not impure. But 
as God was accessible to offenders, in his sanctuary on earth, only 
when atoning blood had been offered; so God, in his heavenly 
sanctuary, is accessible to sinners, only through the blood of Jesus 
there offered, and there consecrating a new and living way of ac- 
cess to the throne of mercy. It is in this sense, that the writer 
means to apply xadaoitsodar, viz. that of rendering the sanctuary 
approachable by offenders, and affording assurance of liberty to 
draw near to God (4: 16), rather than that of direct purification 
from uncleanness ; which could not be predicated of the heavenly 
sanctuary. It is the effect of the purifying blood of Jesus, in re- 
gard to giving access to the heavenly sanctuary, which the writer 
means to compare with the purification of the tabernacle and its 
utensils ; for the most holy place of the earthly tabernacle could 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 23, 24. 219 


De ag eee 
be properly approached by offenders, only when atonement was 
made. ; 

24, That better sacrifices than those offered on earth by the 
Jewish priests, were required under the priesthood of Christ, neces- 
sarily results from the nature of the sanctuary in which Christ 
ministers. Od yao ec yevgonointa ayon .-.. ovgavoy ; for 
Christ entered not into a sanctuary made by hands, which is only 
a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself. It is the entrance of 
Christ, as a priest, into the heavenly sanctuary, of which the wri- 
ter is here speaking. That Christ performs the office of priest in 
the heavenly sanctuary, the writer has already intimated several 
times; see 9: 9, 11. 8: 1—4. ’Avtiruna copy, image, effigy, 
form or likeness, corresponding to the original ruos, shewn to Mo- 
ses in the mount, 8:5. "4An ue means, that which is real; i.e. 
the original or heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly one is a 
mere copy. In other words, they stand related as substance and 
shadow or image. The reality is in heaven ; the emblem or mere 
similitude of it, on earth. 

Nov zupavPijvae .... Mov, thenceforth to appear before 
God, in our behalf. Nov means, from the point of time when he 
entered heaven as our high priest, onward indefinitely ; and it im- 
plies, that his office was continued while the writer was then ad- 
dressing his readers. “ZugawoOyjvee means, among other things, 
to present one’s self before a tribunal, for the sake of accusing or 
defending. In the former case, it is followed by xaza, e.g. Acts 
94: 1. 25: 2, 15; in the latter, it takes veo after it, as in our 
text. The usual and full grammatical construction would be wore 
Zugpaviodyvar. I have been able to find no similar usage of éuga- 
vigw, among the Greeks. 

Tip mpoown tov Geov, the same as the Hebrew pToN 7B, 
being altogether Hebraistic. The whole comparison is taken 
from the custom of the Jewish high priest, who, when he entered 
the most holy place, was said to appear before God, or to draw near 
to God, because the presence of God was manifested over the mer- 
cy seat, in the holy of holies, and God was represented, and was 
conceived of by the Jews, as sitting enthroned upon the mercy 
seat. Now as the high priest appeared before God, in the Jewish 
temple, and offered the blood of beasts for expiation, on the great 
day of atonement, in behalf of the Jewish nation; so Christ, in the 


220 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 24—26. 





heavenly temple, enters the most holy place with his own blood 
(v. 12), to procure pardon (aéwviey Avrgwouv) for us. This is 
what the writer means, by gugavioOjvae to mo06Wnw TOU PE0U 
Unéy Humor. 

25. But although there is a similitude between the atoning of- 
fice of Christ and that of the Jewish high priest, yet there is a 
great difference, in some respects, between his manner of offering 
expiatory sacrifice, and that of the Levitical priesthood. Ovd" ive 
modhanes .... ahhorgio, yet not that he may frequently repeat the 
offering of himself, like the high priest, who, every year, enters into 
the sanctuary with blood not his own. ‘This refers to the entrance 
of the high priest into the sanctuary, on the great day of atone- 
ment. “Ly aiuate adhoroiw, with the blood of others, i.e. with 
blood not his own ; in distinction from the manner in which Christ 
entered the heavenly sanctuary, which was with his own blood, v. 
12. ‘Two points of difference, then, are here suggested, between 
the Jewish offerigs and that of Christ; the one, that they were 
often repeated, his was made but once; the other, that the high 
priest presented the blood of goats and bullocks, but Jesus, his own 
blood. 

26, “Emel 20ev. .. . xdomov, for then he must needs have often 
suffered, since the world began. That is, since the blood of Christ 
is necessary to make atonement for sin, and to procure pardon for 
it from the righteous and spiritual Judge of men; and since the 
blessings, procured by the death of Jesus, must enure as well to the 
benefit of the ages which preceded his coming, as to those which 
follow it, (see v. 15 and Rom. 3: 25, 26); it follows, that if his 
sacrifice had not been of a different nature and value from that of 
the Jewish priests, it must have been continually repeated, from 
the very beginning of the world, down to the time in which the 
writer was addressing his readers. We may of course add, that it 
must have continued to be repeated down to the end of the world, 
for the same reason. This passage serves then to shew, that when 
Heb. 9: 15 and Rom. 3: 25, 26, are construed as having relation to 
the retrospective influence of the death of Christ, no doctrine for- 
éign to the conceptions of our author is introduced ; for the verse 
under consideration is plainly built upon the ground of such a re- 
‘rospective influence. 

Nov 02 anak... . neqaréomras, but now, at the close of the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 26, 27. 221 


-s 








[Jewish] dispensation, he has once for all made his appearance, in 
order to remove the punishment due to sin by the sacrifice of himself. 
Nov does not relate particularly to time here, but is a particle of 
opposition, in contradistinction to émei. uvteleig tov aiwvor, 
the close of the Mosaic economy or period. _4iwy singular, and 
aiwveg plural, appear to be sometimes used in the same sense, in 
the New Testament; like ovgavog and ovgavol, oaffurov and 
oa3Sare, and some other nouns. For the meaning given to awy 
see Wahl’s Lex. on the word. 

‘Avérnous signifies, putting away, removal, abrogation, annul- 
ling, etc. “Auaotia I understand here, as meaning the penalty due to 
sin; Justas the Hebrew nun means, sim, and the punishment, con- 
sequences, of sin; and 719 means, iniquity, and the punishment 1. e. 
consequences of iniquity. It is true, indeed, that Christ came to 
save men from the power, as well as the penalty, of sin; but most 
evidently his death is here considered, by our author, as an expia- 
tory sacrifice, by virtue of which the consequences of sin, i.e. the 
punishment due to it, are removed, and the sinner treated as though 
he were innocent. 

Ave tHg Yvoius avrov, comp. 1:3. 2:14. 7: 27. 9: 12, 14, 
15. 10: 5—10. 

The whole comparison stands thus. ‘As the expiatory sacri- 
fices under the law, which were annually offered, and therefore of- 
ten repeated, procured remission of the temporal punishment due 
to offences under the Mosaic dispensation ; so the sacrifice of 
Christ, and the blood which he presents, once for all, in the eternal 
or heavenly sanctuary, is effectual to procure spiritual pardon for 
all times and ages, past and to come.’ Nothing could exhibit the 
great superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Jewish, in 
a more striking point of light than this. The latter, by its offerings 
and atonements, procured only a remission of temporal punishment 
in the present world; the former, a remission aiwyiov xodaocews 
(Matt. 25: 46) in the world to come. 

27. Kal xa doov.... nolows, for since it is appointed unto 
men to die once only, and after this [cometh] the judgment. Kad 
OGov is sometimes equivalent to za0ws¢, since, as, in this epistle ; 
e. g. 7: 20, comp. v.22; and here it is plainly the same as we or 
zadac. 'Anoxectas, repositum est, it is laid up for, i. e. by divine 
appointment, 7¢ 7s reserved for, or, it awaits men, once to die, 


ta: 


222 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 27, 28, 


ee 





The translation gives the meaning, but not with literal exactness. 
" Anaé is here, once for all, only once; for the object of this com- 
parison is to shew that as men die but once, so Christ, whe had a 
nature truly human, and was in all things made like unto his breth- 
ren (2: 17), could die but once, (and not oftentimes), in order to 
atone for sin. 

Mere 62 tovro xgisrg, i.e. men, having once died, go after 
that to a state of reward or punishment, to a final state, in which 
no more such changes as death makes can be suffered.. The 
clause in question is added to the former part of the verse, in order 
to shew that dying more than once is impossible, inasmuch as 
judgment immediately follows, with which is connected the immu- 
table state of men. The implication contained in this verse, viz. 
that a state of trial in a future world, like to that which is allowed 
to men in the present world, is not to be expected, seems to be 
plain. 

28. Ourw xaio Xovoros.... duagrias, so Christ, also, after 
having once for all offered up himself, in order to bear the sins of 
many. ‘The writer had been labouring, in the preceding context, 
to shew that the offering of Christ needed not, like that of the high 
priest, to be often repeated. Vs. 27 and 28 are designed to shew 
that a repetition of the death of Jesus, (who suffered in our nature), 
would have been inconsistent with the nature which he sustained, 
and contrary to all analogy. So the author; ‘Since men die 
but once, so Christ died or was offered up, sooceveyPeis, but 
once.’ 
— Tooceveyteic (from ooogeow) is a part. of the 1 aor. passive, 
and may be rendered, offered up himself, or made an offering of 
himself, inasmuch as the 1 aor. pass. frequently has a middle or 
reflexive sense, particularly when any verb lacks the Ll aor. of the 
middle voice, Buttmann Gram. § 123. TIgoogéow is a very gen- 
eral word in respect to offerings, and designates the action of the 
person who brings the sacrifice, or of the priest who presents it. 
As the sacrifice offered to God was first slain, and then presented ; 
so the idea of an offering here necessarily involves the idea of the 
death of the victim offered. It is this implied idea of the death of 
the victim, that stands in comparison with the anak anoPaveiy of 
all men; i. e. as they die but once, so Christ died but once. 

‘Tlodiov, many, i.e. all nations without distinction, Jews and 


¥ 


Risa COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 28. 223 








Gone fotos past and ages to come, vs. 15, 26 and Rom. 3: 


25, 26. See the like representation, respecting the universality of 
the benefits offered through the death of Christ, in Matt. 20: 28. 
26: 28. Rom. 5: 15, 19 comp. v. 18. John 6: 51. 3: 16. 1 John 2: 
2, etc. 

“Aveveynsiy apaotias, to bear the sins, means, to bear the pun- 
ishment, 1. e. to suffer the penalty, due to sin. See Excursus XIX. 

"Ex dsutéoov .... tg owrnoiar, shall make his appearance, a 
second time, without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who 
wait for him. °Ex dsutéoov has reference to «ag in the preced- 
ing clause. Christ appeared and died once for sin ; but when he 
appears again, éx devrégou, it will not be to repeat his sufferings, 
j. e. to make again an expiatory sacrifice, but for the purposes of 
bestowing rewards on those, who trust in him and wait for his com- 
ing. 

Xwois auaoetiag has been variously explained. But it is evi- 
dent, that the expression has a direct reference to the preceding 


clause, i.e. either to moooeveyPeic, or to aveveyneiv apmaotias. 
@ 4 ao 


In the former case, AUAOTLAS, in our clause, would mean s?n offer- 
ing, like nkun, DWN, because nmoooeveyOeic means, he made him- 
self an offering. The meaning would then be, ‘ but when Christ 
again appears, he will not make himself a sin-offering, i.e. his ap- 
pearance will be ywgi¢ auagriag. So I understand the phrase. 
But if we construe ywgi¢ emagtias, as referring to aveveyxety 
cuaotiac, then the supplement to the phrase will be ywgi¢ [zou 
aveveynsiv] auaotiag. The meaning of this is, ‘ Without again suf- 
fering the penalty due to sin.’ In either way, the sense amounts 
to about the same ; for either method of interpretation makes the 
writer say, that Christ would no more suffer on account of the sins 
of men, but that, by dying once, he has perfectly accomplished the 
redemption of those who trust in him. 

Toig avrov anendeyouzvore means, those who, renouncing the 
world, and resisting all the motives to swerve from Christian hope 
and faith, which the times presented, patiently wait for the rewards 


- which the Saviour will finally bestow upon his followers. There is 


a tacit admonition to the Hebrews in this; for it is as much as to 
Peay, ‘Those only who do thus persevere, will be rewarded.’ £i¢ 
swryoiay has reference to the future salvation or blessedness, which 
Christ will bestow upon his followers, at his second coming. 


224 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: ft. 


—— — — SEUSS Renee 





The insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices to procure spiritual pardon for sin, and the 
sufficiency of the sacrifice which Christ had offered, was one of the most important and inter- 
esting of all the points, which the writer of our epistle had to discuss. The Hebrews in gene- 
ral placed full confidence in the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices to purify them from sin, at 
least, to remove the penalty of it. Every person, who is conscious of sin, and knows that it 
subjects him to the penalty of the divine law, must naturally feel a deeper interest in the ques- 
tion, whether and how sin can be pardoned, than in any other. It was very natural for Jews, 
who had been educated in the full belief of the efficacy of the sacrifices instituted by Moses, to 
cling to them as the foundation of their dearest and highest hopes, viz. the means of pardon, 
and restoration to divine favour. It was an attachment to the Jewish ritual, built upon hopes 
of such a nature, which rendered the Mosaic religion so attractive to the Hebrews, and endan- 
gered their adherence to a Christian profession. There was much, too, in the pomp and so- 
lemnity of their rites, which served to interest the feelings and delight the fancy of the wor- 
shippers. It is on account of the strong attachment, which they cherished for their system of 
sacrifices and purifications, that our author is so urgent, in shewing that real pardon with 
God could not be procured by any or all of these means. The blood of Christ only cleanses 
from sin, and procures acceptance for sinners with God, as their spiritual judge. 

Accordingly, in Chap. 1X. he declares that the tabernacle, with all its sacred utensils and 
services, was only an image or symbol (71¢Q@8047,) of what is real and spiritual in the heaven- 
ly world, a copy merely of the 0x41, OU YEtQoTLOiHTOS, 9: 9—11, or a mere VITUNELy Ma THY 
zy oveavotc, 9:23. The Jewish sacrifices availed for nothing more than external purification, 
9: 10, 13; while the blood of Christ purified the soul or mind (Guveidyow) from the unclean- 
ness of sin, and rendered it capable of offering acceptable service to the living God, 9:14. Af- 
ter adducing various considerations to show how extensively the rites of the law, which re- | 
quired the exhibition and application of blood, prefigured that atoning blood which Jesus offer- 
ed to make expiation for sin, and that his death once for all, was sufficient for this purpose, he 
proceeds, in chap. X., more deeply to impress the great subject of atoning sacrifice by Christ 
upon the minds of his readers, knowing that very much depended on the conviction which 
might be attained in respect to this point. Could they be persuaded, that Jesus had himself 
offered the only sacrifice which made real expiation for sin; and that.this, once offered, was 
an all-sufficient sacrifice; then there could be no rational inducement for them to abandon 
their spiritual hopes, and return to their confidence in the rites of the Levitical law. 

The repetition of this subject, is for the purpose of suggesting some new arguments in or- 


der to enforce it; as may be seen in vs. 5—18. 
a - 


CHAP. X. 


1. Dna yao éyov.....neayuatwy, moreover the law, which 
presented only an imperfect sketch of future blessings, and not a full 
representation of those things. Sxia and e‘zwy are related, as 
the Latin umbra and effigies are. 'The former is an imperfect sketch, 
a mere outline (as we say), a slight representation or resemblance ; 
the latter is a picture or image filled out or completed, and made, 
in all its minuter parts, to resemble the original. Not that these 
words are always employed with a sedulous attention to these nice 
shades of signification; but in the case before us they are so, for 
they are evidently contrasted with each other. The meaning of the 
writer is, ‘ The law did not even go so far, as to exhibit a full im- 
age of future blessings, but only a slight -adumbration. ”Eyav hav- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 1, 2. 225 





ing, containing, possessing, affording, or (ad sensum) exhibiting, 
presenting, so as to accord with the nature of the image which fol- 
lows. 

Nomog means here, the sacrificial ritual law, of which he had 
before been speaking ; the old m°73, ‘OvaOnxn, which was to be 
abolished. The whole law of Moses, i.e. the moral code which it 
contains, is not the subject of consideration or assertion here. 
Meéhioviwyr ayatav, the same as in 9: 11. wv moayparoy, i.e. 
TOUTOY, Viz. the future biessings just before mentioned. 

Kar émavrov.... tehevoour, by the yearly sacrifices them- 
selves, which are continually offered, can never fully accomplish 
what is needed for those who approach [the altar]: By the xar 
évvavtoyv Pvoiarg, the writer means particularly to designate those 
which were offered on the great day of national atonement ; which 
were considered the most sacred and efficacious of all, inasmuch 
as the high priest then entered the inner sanctuary, and presented 
himself before the mercy seat. 

ITeoogéeovor, with a nominative not expressed, is equivalent 
to the passive voice here, as often elsewhere, agreeably to the He- 
brew idiom. 

Eig co Ounvexes, without cessation, continually, i.e. they were 
repeated each successive year. The word is peculiar to this epis- 
tle; and Schneider has omitted it in his Lexicon; but Elian, Ap- 
pian, Diodorus Siculus, and Symmachus, employ it. 

Tovs moocevyouevovg means, the worshippers who approach 
the altar, or the temple, or the divine presence in the temple. 
The sense is for substance the same, whichever of these be un- 
derstood. For retecmoar, see on Heb. 9: 9 and 7:11. The 
sentiment of the verse corresponds very exactly with that in 9: 9, 
10. 

2. “Enel ovx adv éxavoarto npoogeoouevat, for otherwise, i. e. 
if the sacrifices could have perfected those who esis them, 
would not the offerings have ceased? To noooqgegouevae most 
critics subjoin ¢¢vae understood, which would be equivalent to the 
infinitive meoogeveoOas, rendering the phrase thus, They (i. e. the 
sacrifices) had ceased to be offered.” The sense of the phrase 
thus explained, is the same that I have given to it. But moooge- 
oopevae [Ovoiae] évavoorto seems to me more facile than the oth- 
er construction. 

VOL, Il. 29 


226 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 2, 3. 





Ata 10 pndepiay .... nexadaguevovs, because the worship- 
pers once for all made clean, would have no longer been conscious of 
sins. Aoatgevortag designates those who brought the offerings or 
sacrifices, and on whose account they were presented to God, i.e. 
the worshippers. “42a denotes here, as in the preceding chapter, 
once for all; the nature of the argument demanding this sense. 
For if a worshipper, at one time, obtained pardon, or was made 
clean only in respect to past offences, (and surely expiatory sacri- 
_ fices were offered only with respect to the past), this would not pre- 
vent the dread of punishment at a future period, when new offen- 
ces would have been committed. To be purified once for all, then, 
was necessary, in order to quiet the apprehensions of such a wor- 
shipper. ; 

Kexaaguevovs, purified, atoned for.. As xodoaoiSo means, in 
Hebrew Greek, to make expiation for, to purify by expiatory offer- 
ing, to pronounce or declare one to be pure; so xexoOaouevoug of 
course means, those atoned for, those for whom expiation is made, 
those declared to be pure, or rendered pure, and consequently, restor- 
ed to favour. 

SvveiOnow means not merely, conscience, but consciousness, 
opinion, judgment, sentiment, apprehension. Svvetdnow apagteay 
is an apprehension of the consequences of sin, or, @ consciousness 
that one has subjected himself to them, a consciousness of guilt. 
“Auaorioy may mean here, (as often before), punishment of sin, 
consequences of sin, like the corresponding Hebrew nxwn, TiS) yD} 
or it may mean, sin, guilt, transgression. The writer, however, - 
does not mean to say, thaf the pardon of sin takes away from him, 
who obtains it, the consciousness that he has once been the subject 
of moral turpitude. ‘This the blood of Christ itself does not effect; 
and in heaven, the consciousness of this will forever raise high the 
notes of gratitude for redeeming mercy. But pardon may and 
does remove the apprehension of penalty for sin; or if by egeayre- 
ov we understand sin, guilt simply, then, to be made clean (xexa- 
@aouevovs) from this, so as to have no consciousness of it, is so to 
be purified, as not to contract the stain of it. 

3. AAA év avraie.... éveautov, nay rather, by these [sacrifi- 
ces] yearly remembrance of sins is made. ° Akio, but rather, nay 
rather, quin, quinimo; or, (as | have rendered it in the version), 
on the contrary, but. Avraic agrees with Ovolucs implied ; see in 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 3—5. pay! 





v. 1. On the day of annual atonement, the sacrifices that were 
offered being of an expiatory nature, and being designed as propitia- 
tory offerings, they were of course adapted to remind the Hebrews of 
the desert of sin, i. e. of the punishment or penalty due to it. As 
they continued to be offered yearly, so those who brought them 
must be reminded, through their whole lives, of new desert of 
punishment. The writer means, however, that a yearly remem- 
brance of sin in a spiritual respect, not merely in a civil or eccle- 
siastical one, was made; for in this sense, the yearly atonement 
procured pardon. In the other, it did not ; as he now proceeds to 
assert. 

4.’ Advvaroy yao... apuaorias, itis, indeed, impossible that the 
blood of bulls and goats should remove the penalty due to sin. 
"Apasosiy cuagtiag means, to take away sin, in the sense of re- 
moving the penalty or consequences of sin; for this is the subject 
of which the writer is now treating. That the author has refer- 
ence to the consequences of sin in a future world, or to the punish- 
ment of it which God inflicts as the spiritual judge of men, is evi- 
dent from the whole tenor of his discussion. One so profoundly 
versed as he was in all the Jewish ritual law, surely was not igno- 
rant of the fact, that civil and ecclesiastical pardon for offences of 
various kinds, was every day procured by the blood of bulls and 
goats, and this too, agreeably to divine appointment. 

5. Nothing could be more directly in opposition to Jewish pre- 
judices, respecting the importance and value of the Levitical sac- 
rifices, than the assertion just made. Hence the writer deems it 
prudent to make his appeal to the Scriptures, for confirmation of 
what he had advanced. This he does, by quoting a passage from 
Ps. x., which he applies to the Messiah, and to the efficacy of the 
sin-offering made by him. 

Ao ELGEQYOMEVOS ELS TOV x0GMOY, Aeyes, wherefore, entering into 
the world, he [Christ] says; i.e. because the blood of goats and 
bullocks is not efficacious, in procuring pardon for sin, Christ, 
when entering into the world, is represented by the Psalmist as 
saying, viz. in Ps. 40: 7 seq. 

Avoiav xa meoogogay oux EFehnous, in sacrifice and oblation 
thou hast no pleasure. Gvoia means, a sacrifice of some slain beast, 
from 9vo, to kill. So the corresponding Hebrew maz, from m3}, 
mactare. Ilgoogog« is any thing offered or presented; and here 


228 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 5. 





it means, other oblations than those of sacrifices, such as thank- 
offerings, libations, etc. The corresponding Hebrew min, gift, 


present, comes from the obsolete root 27, ta present, Arabic 
OR J 


A, the same. Ovx é0¢lnous, Hebrew nam Nd, is capable of 
being translated, thou hast not required, or, thou hast not desired, 
thou hast no pleasure in or desire for. The latter is, doubtless, 
the shade of meaning here. The sentiment is not, that God had 
‘not at all required sacrifices and oblations, for this he had done; 
but that they were, in a comparative sense, of little value; they 
were insufficient in themselves to accomplish the higher purposes 
of his spiritual law, and therefore he had no pleasure in them. 

Sone 02 xarnotiow mot, but a body hast thou prepared for me. 
A very difficult and much agitated expression. . If we recur, in the 
first place, to the original Hebrew, we find the corresponding words 
there to be, "3-m°7D O721N, mine ears hast thou opened. The 
verb 77> (from 73) means, primarily, to dig, to hollow out, e. g. 
a well, Gen, 26: 25; a pit, Ps. 7: 16, or pit-fall, Ps. 57:7; a sep- 
ulchre or grave, Gen. 50: 5. 2 Chron. 16: 14. The verb m2 has 
also the meaning of purchasing or procuring, e.g. water, Deut. 2: 
6; particularly of procuring a supply of food and drink, 2 K. 6: 
23 ; also of other things, e. g. a wife, Hosea 3: 2, where 47 Dx has 
a Daghesh euphonic in the 5. These are all the meanings of this 
word, which the Hebrew Scriptures present. In translating D721 
%, n° >, then, we may render it ejther, m/ne ears hast thou opened, 
which i is only a small deflection from the literal sense, (for to dig 
out a pit or well, is fo open one); or we may render it, ears hast — 
thou provided for me, in which sense the Seventy seem plainly to 
have understood m>>5, when they reridered it by xarnoziom. The 
former sense seems to be more analogical with the nature of the 
subject, and with the Hebrew idiom. The Hebrews speak of 
opening the ears, and uncovering them, in order to designate the 
idea of prompt obedience, of attentive listening to the commands 
of any one. E. g. Is. 50: 4, we have yimzd jis 1b av, he ercited 
my ear to hear ; and in v. 5 is an equivalent expression, is 1S HDD, 
he opened mine ear, which is explained in the corresponding par- 
‘allelism, by a reel Ne "3281, and I was not refractory, i. e. I was 
obedient. So jin mb: 3 to uncover, to disclose the ear, means, to 
communicate any thing or reveal it to another ; e. g. 1 Sam. 20: 


= 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 5, 6. 229 


RO a ue i es or 


2,12, 13. 22: 17. From such forms of expression, in Hebrew, 
with such a meaning, we may very naturally conclude that D723N 
m2 (in Ps. 40: 7) means, thou hast opened mine ears, i.e. thou 
hast made me obedient, or, I am entirely devoted to thy service. 
And Ps. 40: 8, 9, which exhibits the consequence of having the 
ears opened, leads us almost unavoidably to make such a conclu- 
sion, respecting the meaning of the phrase in question. 

If this view of the meaning be correct, then another interpreta- 
tion, put upon the phrase by many critics, is not well founded. 
They render it, mine ears hast thou bored through. _'They suppose 
the expression to be figurative, and to be borrowed from the He- 
brew usage of boring through, with an awl, the ear of a person, 
who became the voluntary servant of another; as described in 
Ex. 21: 6. Deut. 15: 17. Mine ears hast thou bored through would 
then mean, ‘1 am through life thy voluntary servant,’ or, ‘T will 
be perpetually obedient to thee.’ This sense, it will be. seen, 
agrees in general with that put upon the phrase by the other mode 
of explanation. But the source of explanation here adopted, does 
not seem to be admissible. In Ex. 21: 6, the verb bore through is 
yxq, (not 749. as in Ps, 40: 7), and the instrument by which it is 
done is named yx¥772, an awl, a derivate of the verb »x¥4. So in 
Deut. 15: 17, the instrument named is the same 4772, and the ac- 
tion of boring through is expressed by 421N2 5nN3, thou shalt put 
it through his ear, (not n°4>). That 97 ‘and. 7D indicate very 
distinct actions, is sufficiently plain; for to bore through any thing, 
and to dig or hollow out a pit, grave, or well, are surely very differ- 
ent actions, indicated in Hebrew by verbs, as different as the Eng- 
lish dig and bore through. Moreover, in Ex. 21: 6 and Deut. 15: 
17, the singular 77& is used, and not as here D124, both ears. 

The original, then, in Ps. 40: 2,%5 m-2 DI2TN, means, mine 
ears has thou opened, i. e. me hast thou made. readily or attentively 
obedient ; at least, this seems to be the meaning, if we make Is. 
50: 4, 5 our exegetical guide. See Excursus XX. 

6. “Ohoxavtmpora xat....evdoxnoaus, in whole burnt offerings 
and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast no delight. “Ohoxavtmpara means, 
such offerings as were entirely consumed upon the altar ; so the cor- 
responding Heb. m4» signifies, Teed ¢uagriag isan elliptical ex- 
pression, answering to the Hebrew original NOM, and which com- 
pleted would be, Guolae reo? auaorias, sin-offerings. Ovx Evdony- 


% 


230 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7. 





oac, Heb. HaNe Nd, requirest not, desirest not, demandest not, hast 
no pleasure in. 

7. Tore einov, therefore I said, or, then I said. The first of these 
versions is approved by eminent critics. They suggest, that if rote 
(Heb. 3x) be referred to time merely, it seems very difficult to as- 
certain what is the precise meaning ; for at what particular time 
was it, that God did not delight in whole burnt offerings and sacri- 
fices for sin? It may however be said, that the speaker here refers 
to the time, when he is disclosing these views respecting sacrifices. 
Supposing this to be the case, rove would mean, then, i. e. imme- 
diately after this sentiment was declared; which would be very 
congruous with the context. If core be rendered, therefore, the 
meaning will be, ‘ because thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifices, 
therefore I said, etc.’ Strictly speaking, however, rdze is not illa- 
tive. I prefer the other rendering. 

“Lov yum .... eknua oov, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy will, 
(in the volume of the book it is written respecting me). ‘Jdov xm 
expresses the readiness of him who speaks, to obey the will of God. 

"Ev nxeqadioe BrBiiov is a much agitated expression. The He- 
brew is simply "pO7n53793, in the roll, or volume of the book. But 
how does xeqadtde BiBdiov correspond to this? Kegadig denotes 
the end or extremity of any thing, as being the head or summit of it. 
The Heb. 459, 6PAiov, was a manuscript rolled upon a cylinder 
of light wood, at the extremity of which were heads or knobs, for 
the sake of convenience to those wlfo used the manuscript. The 
knob or head, xeqedis, is here taken as a part, which is descriptive 
or emblematic of the whole. Kegadig Gi8hiov means therefore, a 
BrBAtov or AED with a xeqadig, i.e. a.manuscript roll; which was 
the form of the Jewish sacred books, and is still retained in all their 
synagogues. It coincides, then, with regard to signification, very 
exactly with the Heb. 455 5372, of which it is a translation. 

But what volume of manuscript-roll is here meant? Plainly 
the one which was already extant, when the Psalmist was writing. 
If the Psalmist was David himself, (as the title of the psalm seems 
to affirm), the only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures then extant, and 
of course the only part to which he could refer, must have-been the 
Pentateuch, and perhaps the book of Joshua. Beyond any reason- 
able doubt, then, the xspadig BeBiiov (72 M2472) was the Penta- 
teuch. - ; 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7. Boi 








But what is there written, and how, respecting the personage who 
speaks in the 40th Psalm? Rosenmiiller (on Ps. 40:7) translates 
the Hebrew "59 a9n> ( yéyouuntar nevi gov) by prescriptum est 
mihi, and appeals to 2 K. 22: 13, for confirmation of this version. 
‘He compares, also; Gen. 2: 16. Ezra 1: 2, where dp is used after 
max and 4p5, verbs of commanding or enjoining. Gesenius ap- 
proves this version, but produces no other instances to confirm it, 
which are of the same kind. He appeals, indeed, to Est. 9: 23, 
‘where >k is used after 2n>; and to Hos. 8: 12. 2 K. 17: 37, and 
Prov. 22: 20, where > is used after the same verb, in order to con- 
firm this interpretation. But the three last cases plainly denote 
nothing more, than that the matter referred to was written for the 
use of another, or addressed to him. Such too is the case with the 
other example in Est: 9: 23 as may be clearly seen by comparing 
Est. 9:20. With deference to the opinion of these very distinguish- 
ed critics, I must still doubt, therefore, whether >» 1n> means, prae- 
scribere alicui. At most, there is only 2 K. 22: 15, which is appo- 
site to establish this signification ; and even here the meaning in 
question is not necessary ; for 73%23 29ND may be rendered, with 
about equal significancy, which was written in respect to us, or con- 
cerning us, i.e. for our sake, or to regulate our duties. The Sev- 
enty, then, who translated "by aan> by yeyeunrae meg? guov, trans- 
lated it agreeably to the usual idiom of the Hebrew. The apos- 
tle, in our text, has evidently recognized the correctness of this 
version. The difference in meaning, between prescribed to me and 
written concerning me, is a considerable one, in this case. ' The first 
version would represent the speaker as saying, “‘ I come, O God, to 
do thy will, [i. e. my duty], as I am commanded in the Scriptures 
to do.” The second, “ I come to offer my body, or myself, in place 
of the legal sacrifices ; for in the Scriptures, [i. e. in the law of 
Moses], this is written concerning me.” Now as toa choice of 
versions here, it will not be doubted, that the latter version accords. 
with the reasoning and design of the apostle, or rather, that it is 
important to his purpose. The first version would not, indeed, con- 
tradict the design of the apostle ; for he might say, It is prescribed 
in the Scriptures, that the Messiah should do the will of God, i. e. 
make himself an offering for sin. Comp. Luke 24: 25—27, 46. 
Acts 17: 2, 3. 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12. But I apprehend the meaning of 
the writer to be, that the book of the law, which prescribes sacrifices 


an 


232 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7, 8. 


that were merely oxcai or magaPodai of the great atoning sacrifice 
by Christ, did itself teach, by the use of these, that something of a 
higher and better nature was to be looked for than Levitical rites. 
In a word, it pointed to the Messiah, or, some of the contents of 
the written law had respect to him. So Michaelis, Storr, and oth- 
ers. Still, yeyoanrae neoi éuov may have respect to declarations, in 
the Pentateuch, of a different and more direct nature. That there 

are such, Jesus himself affirms, John 5: 46. So Paul, Acts 26: 22, 23. 
G6 al. 3: 16 seq. Construed in either way, the amount of the phrase 
Rpt: _under consideration is, ‘ In the law of Moses I am described as 
coming to do thy will,’ i. e. to offer my body as a sacrifice, comp. 
v. 10. 

That the Hebrews, to whom the apostle addressed himself, would 
recognize such an affirmation, and feel the force of it, seems to be 
nearly certain, from the fact, that the writer without any hesitation 
addresses it to them, in order to produce conviction in their minds 
with respect to the point which he is labouring to establish. Cer- 
tain it is, then, that both he and the Christian Hebrews to whom he 
wrote, believed that the Jewish ritual had respect to the sacrifice of 
the Messiah, and that he was virtually revealed, in the law of Mo- 
ses, as a suffering Saviour, making atonement for the sins of his 
people. Were this not so, then the’ argument in Heb. 10: 5—10 
would be destitute of any real foundation, and consequently, of any 
force as a proof of what the writer is labouring to establish.. 

‘O &s0c, Heb. aba, O my Gol. If the M essiah be consider- 
ed as uttering this before his incarnation, and as Logos, then would | 
it be an embarrassing circumstance to explain it, how in his simple 
divine nature he could speak of “ my God.” But if considered as 
a prophetic anticipation of what he would say, during his incarna- 
tion, (and so it clearly seems to me the writer intends it should be 
considered), then 0 &«0¢, or 0 @£0¢ wou, accords with the usage of 
.the Saviour in addressing the Father, as disclosed in the gospel, 

Matt. 27: 46, al. , 

To Oéinue cov. What this will is, see in v. 10. 

8. “_Averregor héywv..... evdounous, first, he says, “ Sacrifice, 
and oblation, and whole burnt-offering, and [offering] for sin thou 
destrest not, nor hast pleasure in them.” ° Avategor, lit. above, which 
is equivalent here to first, or, in the first place. 

" Aurwes nate tov vouov mooogéeoovtat, which are presented ac- 






COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: S—10. 233 





cording to the law. This is a parenthetic explanation, added by 
the writer, in order to shew that the same legal sacrifices, in which 
the Hebrews were in danger of placing their confidence, were those 
which must be superseded by the death of Christ. 

9. Tore sionuev.... 10 Géednua cov, and then says, “ Lo I 
come to do thy will.” We might expect e¢awy here, instead of 
sionxev, for the regular construction of the sentence would seem to 
require it. But here is a sentence constructed in the Hebrew 


manner, which not unfrequently begins with a participle in the ; 


first clause, and then uses a verb in the second, when both stand — 
in the same relation to the sequel of the sentence, see Heb. Gram. 
§ 212. 2. Itis evident here, that avwregov Aeyoy and tore evonne 
both bear the same relation to avacoet x. t. 4. the sense of which, 
I may add, is rendered quite obscure, by the period which most 
editors of the Greek Testament have put before it. Fa 

‘Avaiget.... 0t7,6n, he abolishes the first, viz. the sacrifices 
etc. that he may establish the second, viz. the doing of the will of 
God, or the offering of himself as a sacrifice for sin, v. 10. That 
s, ‘doing the will of God, or obedience to him even unto death, 
or the offering up of his body, is represented by the Psalmist as a 
substitute for legal sacrifices, and as an arrangement which would 
supersede them.’ 

It is quite plain, that avacoet x. r. 4. is an inference, drawn 
from the two declarations recited in the context immediately pre- 
ceding; for mowzroy certainly refers to the legal sacrifices, and 
dedtegor to the obedience of the Messiah. But the construction 
of the sentence, (for clearly it is in fact but one sentence), is He- 
braistic, as noted above, and not according to the rules of classi- 
cal Greek ; and it affords a notable example, how far the style of 
our author is from the easy, rhetorical, flowing method, of which so 
much has been said by late critics, and from that EhAnvinorns, 
which even, Origen ascribes to him. 

10. The writer proceeds to explain what is meant, in this case, 
by doing the wiil of God, and what is the efficacy of that obedi- 
ence. “Ev w @eljuate.... éganak, by which will expiation is 
made for us, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. 
"Ev © Gelnware means, by doing which will, i.e. by whose obedi- 
ence. “Hysaouéevor zoner, expiati sumus, conciliati sumus, purifi- 

VOL. Il. 30 


i 


4 


or 


254 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 10, 11. 





cati sumus, lit. we are consecrated, viz. to God, which necessarily 
implies, purified, atoned for ; see on cyveda under 2: 11. 

The latter part of the verse leaves no doubt, that the writer 
meant to refer the obedience in question, or the doing of the will of 
God, to “ obedience unto death,’’ to the voluntary sacrifice for sin- 
ners which the Saviour offered upon the cross ; comp. Phil. 2: 8. 

The whole amount of the reasoning, in vs. 5—10, is this. 
‘Ritual sacrifices for sin are not accepted by God, as sufficient to 


“remove the penalty due to the moral turpitude of sin. But the 


obedience of the Messiah unto death, the offering of his body on 


_ the cross, is sufficient, and fully supersedes the other sacrifices.’ 


If all this be true, it follows, of course, that what the apostle 
had affirmed in v. 3 is true, viz. that it is impossible for the blood 
of slain beasts to remove the penal consequences of sin, when con- 
sidered in the light of a spiritual offence, and as having respect to 
the tribunal of God. 

“Eqanat, once for all. The idea conveyed by this, is carefully 
repeated again here, because it concerns a point, in respect to 
which the Hebrews would be very prone to raise objections. ‘“‘ You 
affirm,” they would naturally say, ‘that there is a resemblance be- 
tween the sacrifice of Christ and the annual expiatory sacrifices by 
the high priest. But there is evidently a great dissimilitude ; for 
the expiation made by the high priest was repeated every year ; 


while Christ suffered on/y once.” The apostle meets this difficulty, 


by shewing, from various considerations, that being once slain as 
an expiatory offering, was altogether sufficient to satisfy the de- 
mands of the case. Compare Heb. 9: 9—14, 25—28. 10: 1—3, 
10—14. Indeed-Christ, from the nature of the case, could die but 
once, 9: 27, 28. ; 

Il. Kai nag pév isgevg..... Ovotas, now every priest stands 
performing daily service, and oftentimes presenting the same sacrifi- 
ces. Tlac isoeve, every or any Levitical priest. “Hoznxe, stands, 
denoting the attitude of those who are in waiting or attendance 
upon another, and keep the position of standing, both as a token 
of respect, and as a state prepared for ready service. It is only 
the perfect, pluperfect, aor. 2 active, and aor. } passive, of the verb 
‘or that have the intransitive meaning ¢o stand. The other ten- 
ses a ransitive, and mean, {o set, place, station,ete. See Butt- 
mann § 95, and Wahl’s Lex. on the word; and compare (for a 
sense of the word like that above) Rev. 7: 9, 11. 8: 2. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 11-—-14. 235 


ag a Sn ee 


Tag aitag.... Ovoiag. The same daily sacrifices were re- 
peated, without intermission ; see Num. 28: 2—6. 

Aitiveg ovdénote ... . aaoriag, which can never remove the 
penalty due to sin; comp. vs. 1-3. That auaotiag here means, 
penalty due to sin, is plain; and that it may be properly so constru- 
ed, no one will deny, who understands the full meaning of 752, 
nxwn and sug. 

12. Ovrog 02 wlav.... eov, but this [priest] having offered 
a sacrifice for sin of perpetual efficacy, sat down at the right hand 
of God. Inv. II, we have mag igoeus, i.e. every priest of the 
common order, every Levitical priest; the antithesis is 0UTOS, 
which refers to Christ, and which, (if the ellipsis be supplied ac- 
cording to the grammatical construction of sentences), must mean, 
ovz0¢ isgevs. 

Ei to dunvexeég means the same thing here, as éxa£ in 9: 26, 
28, and Zganeé in 10: 10. I connect it with Svolav, and not (as 
Carpzoff) with éxaGvoe. A sacrifice for perpetuity, 1s a sacrifice 
once for all, ég¢anaé, or, it is a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, one 
that needs not to be repeated. 

"Exaduosv év dskeg tov Pe0v, see on Heb. 1: 3. “Lxaduoe here 
is opposed to Zoryjxe,in the preceding verse. The. latter denotes 
the attitude of a servant; the former that of a master or lord. 

13. 76 downey éxdeyousvos ..... nmodav avrov, thenceforth 
waiting until his enemies.be made his footstool. To Aounov means, 

for the rest, viz. of the time ; therefore the idea conveyed by dou- 
nov here is, afterwards, thenceforth. ’Exdsyousvos designates the 
attitude of waiting or expecting. The idea is, that the Messiah is 
seated on his throne, quietly expecting that his enemies will, in due 
time, be all subdued. ‘ ‘ 

Oi 27901 designates all those who are opposed to the charac- 
ter, doctrines, or reigh of Christ. To make them his footstool 
means, thoroughly to subjugate and humble them; comp. 2: 8. 1 
Cor. 15: 27, 28. See the origin of this phrase, in the custom de- 
scribed in Josh. 10: 24. ; 

14. Mig yao moocqgogg .... Tavs ayralouevors, by one offer- 
ing, then, he has forever perfected those for whom expiation 2. made. 
Mug gooogooe, viz. the offering of his own body, v. 10, Baek 
siaze, see on 9:9 and 10: 1. The meaning is, ‘He has’ torever 
removed the penalty due to sin, and procured for those, who were 





236 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 14——18. 








exposed to it, that peace og conscience whieh the law could never 
give ; comp. vs. !—4. ‘“Ayvacouevous, see on 2: 11. 9: 13. 10: 
10. 

15. Maoruosi 02 juiv .... ayvov, moreover, the Holy Spirit 
also testifies [this] to us. A, moreover, a continuative of the dis- 
course, here marking the transition to a new paragraph, in which 
appeal is made, by way of confirming what the writer had said. 
Tie Holy Spirit means, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the Scrip- 
tures; as the sequel shews, which is a quotation from the Scrip- 
tures. “//uiv, to us, means, that the sentiment which the writer 
had been inculcating, the truths which he had declared, are con- 
firmed by what the Holy Spirit says ¢o us, i.e. to us and to all, in 
the Scriptures of truth. 

Mere yeo ro noostonxévac, for after having first said, viz. first 
in order, or in respect to time. 

16. Avrn 4 dvaPjxn x. tA. See on chap. 8: 10, where is the 
same quotation. It is worthy of note, however, that even here, 
where the same passage is appealed to, the words are not all the 
same. In 8: 10, we have 1 o¢xw ’/oga7jA; in 10: 16, avrovg: in 
the former, didovg vouous wou elo cHY OLavOoLaY avrov; in 
the latter, dedovg vouous wou éni xaodtag avroyr: in the for- 
mer, éni xugdiag avra@y éncyoawe avrous; in the latter, én? tov 
diavormy avrov éncygpayw avrovs. Non refert verbum, sed res 
ipsa. The meaning of both is the game. De minimis non curat 
lex. 

1%. Kai tov opagriay tok. fond on 8: 12), then [he says] 
‘© Their sins, etc.” Kat, then, here evidently marks the apodosis 
or corresponding and concluding part of the sentiment, and stands 
asa kind of counterpart to mod in wera yao 70 MOOELONXEVAL, V. 
15; otherwise the.sentence is an example of the anacoluthon. 
Comp. 8: 10—12, where the distance, at which roy auaoray 
x, r. A. follows the first clause, justifies the translation here given 
to xaé; a translation which, indeed, is frequently necessary in the 
writings of the New Testament, in order to render the connexion 
of the sense plain. 

18. The Writer next proceeds to shew, for what purpose this 
quotation is here made, i. e. to express the sentiment, that under 
the new covenant or gospel dispensation, absolute and Jinal pardon 
is to be obtained. “Osou 02 &qeorg .... aduagriag, now where 
there is remission of these, there is no more offering for sin. 


COMMENTARY OW HEB. 10: 18, 19. 237 





” Apeoug here means, spiritual pardon or remission, on the part 
of God as judge and ruler of the world. Zovrwy, i.e. rovtay 
Guaoteoy xa cvoucoy mentioned in the preceding verse. Ovxerz, 
i. e, offering is no more needed, is no more presented. 

This circumstance makes a great difference between the new 
covenant and the old one. Under the latter, sacrifices must be 
perpetually repeated ; and after all, only czvi/ and ecclescastical par- 
don was to be obtained by them. Under the former, one sacrifice 
is sufficient, and avails to procure, for all nations and all ages, 
spiritual pardon or remission of the penalty threatened to be in- 
flicted in a future world. Well might the apostle call this a new 
covenant. 


The writer having gone through a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and 
having shewn, that whether Christ be compared with angels who were the mediators of the 
Mosaic law, or with Moses himself, or with the high priest of the Hebrews, he holds a rank far 
above them; having also shewn, that whether the temple in which he ministers be compared 
with that at Jerusalem, or the sacrifice which he offers be compared with those sacrifices pre- 
sented by the Jewish priests, either as to its exalted nature, its spiritual efficacy in respect to 
procuring pardon for sin, or the duration and extent of its effects, the Mosaic institutions are 
nothing more than the shadow, of which the Christian ones are the substance ; he now proceeds to 
the hortatory and admonitory part of his epistle. In this, various subjects are presented, which 
the circumstances of those whom he was addressing rendered it expedient to consider. All that 
was peculiarly attractive to the Jew, in the Mosai¢ ritual; all that served to allure him away 
from his adherence to Christianity and expose him particularly to the danger of apostasy, the 
the apostle has brought into view, in the preceding part of our epistle, with a design to shew, 
that however attractive or important these things might in themselves be, there was something 
still more so in the Christian religion, something of which the Jewish religion offered only a 
shadow or adumbration. Nothing could be more apposite, then, to the case in hand, than the 
argument of the apostle, in the preceding part of this epistle. 

The practical application, which follows, is designed to excite those whom the writer ad- 
dresses, to constancy and perseverance in their Christian profession, to dehort them from apos- 
tasy, and to warn them against its tremendous consequences. With his warnings, however, 
the apostle intermingles a great dea] of encouragement ‘and promise, in order to excite in them 
an earnest desire to obtain the rewards, which would be bestowed on all who remained faith- 
ful to the end of their course, 

He begins the hortatory. part, by an appeal to the great encouragement, which the present 
privileges of the Hebrew Christians afforded them, to persevere in their Christian profession. 


19. "Lyovres ovv, adsdqoi.... /moov, since, then, brethren, ye 
have free access to the sanctuary, by the blood of Jesus. Ovdv, then, 


‘238 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 19, 20. 





therefore, or, since then. Tagénoia, in its first acceptation, means 
boldness of speech, or, the liberty of speaking without restraint. But 
the word is also used to designate, freedom from restraint generally 
considered ; which is plainly the case here. ITu@énotay eis rv 
etoodor, lit. freedom in respect to entrance, i. e. free access, unre- 
strained liberty of approach. “Ay/wv, i. e. adyOvvmy, the heavenly 
sanctuary, or, the presence of God, comp. 9: 24.. “Zyv 10 aiuate 
‘Jnoow denotes, the means by which this access is procured, agree- 
ably to what has been shown in chap. vii—x. 

20. "Hy évexaivioey.... Gaoar, in a new and living way which 
he has consecrated. ‘Odov 1 take to -be the accusative of manner, 
construed with xazo understood ; or it may be considered as a re- 
petition of ¢¢sodov, and in apposition with it. IZgoogazoy means, 
recent, and has reference to the way lately opened by the new cov- 
enant or gospel dispensation. The way is called new, however, not 
merely because of this, but also because those who draw nigh to 
God in it, have liberty of access in their own persons to the mercy 
seat, and there obtain pardon, by means of a sacrifice altogether 
different from that which was offered for worshippers by the Jewish 
priests. : 

Zacar, i. q. Cwomorovcer, i.e. eto Curvy cyovour, leading to 
life, conferring life or happiness. So €aw is often used in the 
New Testament. But it may mean, here, perennial, perpetual, (a 
frequent sense of aw in the Hebrew Greek) ; and this would be 
altogether congruous with the preceding context, which insists on 
the perpetuity of the sacrifice of Christ. On the whole I prefer the 
former sense. So Theophylact, who assigns the following reason 
for the epithet Caoav, viz. Ore % mewryn Od0S Yavarnyooos iy, 
i. e. because that any one, who entered the inner vail of the temple, 
was punished with death. But here, viz. under the gospel, it is the 
way to life. 

*"Kvexaivioe, consecrated, dedicated. 'To consecrate a way, is to 
open it for access, to dedicate it to use. So Jesus opened the way 
of access for sinners to the eternal sanctuary, in which, if they go, 
they may obtain free access to God, and pardon for all their offen- 
a 

Me vot naromEeraopatos.... cagxos avrov, through the vail, 
that is, his flesh. translate these words literally, because Iam 
not well satisfied that I understand their meaning. The opinions 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20. 239 








of all the commentators it would be tedious, if not useless, to recite. 
The principal interpretation, in which the most distinguished of 
them unite, is, that, as the vail of the temple must be removed in 
order to enter the inner sanctuary, so the body of Jesus must be re- 
moved (by death), that we might have liberty of access to the sanc- 
tuary above. An exegesis which, while the facts to which it alludes 
are true, still presents a comparison incongruous at first view, and 
seemingly requires a distorted imagination to recognise it with any 
degree of satisfaction. 

I could more easily acquiesce in the idea, that there is a kind 
of paronomasia here, in respect to the word dua. The form of it 
may be thus expressed. ‘ As the most holy place in the earthly 
temple, could be approached only through (dec) the vail, i.e. through 
the aperture which the vail covered ; so the heavenly sanctuary is 
approached only through (duc implied) the flesh or body of Jesus.’ 
In this last case, dea (if employed as here supposed) would mean, 
by means of, because of, on account of, viz. by means of the body of 
Jesus sacrificed for sin, see v.10. The paronomasia would consist 
in using dve, in the first case, in the sense of through with respect 
to place; and in the last case, in the sense of through, with the sig- 
nification of by means of. Instances could easily be accumulated, 
where the same word is employed in different senses, in the same 
sentence. E. g. ‘ Let the dead (vezgovs) bury their dead (vezoovs),’ 
Luke 9: 60; where vexgovs, in the first case, means morally dead, 
in the second, physically dead. So 2 Cor. 5: 21, ‘ He hath made 
him to be a sin offering (auagtiav), who knew no sin (auagtiar).’ 
In like manner the apostle might say, ‘ As the Jews had access to 
the inner sanctuary of the temple, dva xaraneraouatos, through the 
vail, so Christians have access to the heavenly sanctuary, dia oug- 
Ge, i.e. 61a MeVGGOOaS Gagz0s /jo0v,’ comp. v. 10. And although 
I would not admit paronomasia, except im cases where there are 
urgent reasons for it, it seems to be more tolerable here, than the 
other method of interpretation suggested above, and is certainly 
in harmony with the principles of the usus loquendi of the sacred 
writers. 

But after all, the mind still seems to feel a want of definite sat- 
isfaction, in regard to either of the methods of interpretation above 
proposed, May I be allowed, in a difficulty of such a nature, to 





240 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20. 


propose, at least for consideration, a third method of interpreting 
the expression 17¢ Gagx0¢ avrou ? 

In John 1: 14, it is said, ‘ The Word became flesh, oaoé ; to 
which the writer adds, zai éoxjrvmoev év yuiv. In 1 Tim. 3: 16, 
we have @<0¢ égaveow9n év ouyxi, supposing the reading to be 
correct, (and the evidence seems to me quite in its favour, and so 
Dr. Knapp has judged). In Rom. 1:4, a broad distinction is made 
between the nature of Christ xata@ owoxza and his nature xara mvev- 
pa ayemourvns ; and in Rom. 9: 5, Christ is said to have descended 
from the Jewish fathers zara owoxa, while he is at the same time, 
6 éxi navtwy eos. In Phil. 2:6, Christ, who was év woogy Peou, 
éxevaoev Eautov, moegyy Oovdov daBov. In all these, and in 
many more passages which might easily be added, the human na- 
ture or body of Christ, seems to be regarded as.a kind of temporary 
tabernacle, or vail of the divine nature which dwelt in him. May 
not our author, in the verse under consideration, have had such an 
idea in his mind, when he wrote tov zaranereouatos, rout é0TL, 
rng oagzo¢g avtou? The idea would seem to be this; ‘ As the 
vail of the temple concealed the glory of Jehovah, in the holy of 
holies, from the view of men, so Christ’s flesh or body screened or 
concealed the higher nature from our view, (which dwelt within 
this vail, as God did of old within the vail of the temple).’ If, on 
this account, the apostle calls Christ’s flesh a vail, then we may ea- 
_sily make out the sense of the verse before us. It would stand 
thus; ‘ As God dwells behind the vail, in his earthly temple ; so 
God dwells behind the vail of Jesus’ body, in his spiritual temple, 
i. e. he can be approached only through the medium of this, or by 
means of this.’ So the context which precedes ; ‘ free access to the 
sanctuary is év aeuate /noov.’ That the writer had in his mind, a 
design to compare the vail of the Jewish temple, as the medium be- 
tween the worshipper and the visible presence of Jehovah; to the 
body of Christ (ao uvrov) as the medium of access to God, or 
what must interpose between God and him ; and this specially in re- 
ference to Christ’s sufferings and death; seems to be, on the whole, 
quite clear. “But which of the ways now proposed, will best present 
this general idea, or whether any of them are sufficiently grounded, 
to be fully admitted, is a question on which the reader must be left 
to judge for himself. My own apprehension, on the whole, is, that 
the occasion of calling Christ’s flesh a wail, or of comparing it to a 








COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20—22. 241 





vail, lies in the views stated under this last explanation ; while, at 
the same time, the actual comparison of the vail of the temple and 
of Christ’s body, is confined to the single point, that each 7s a me~ 
dium of access to God. If you say, ‘ The comparison is, in most 
respects, without grounds of analogy, and the two things widely 
dissimilar ;? my answer is, that there is as much congruity in it, as 
there is in the comparison between the physical death of Christ, 
in Rom. vi., and the moral death of believers to sm, to which the 
former is there compared. Indeed, between all objects of com- 
parison, when God or Christ is one of these objects, there must of 
course be a dissimilarity that is exceedingly great in some respects, 
although there may be an analogy in some others. 

In whatever light our passage is viewed, it will be conceded, 
that its language is far from being in that easy flowing style, which 
has been so often asserted of our epistle. 

21. Kal icota.... Pov, i. e. nad Eyovres izoéu x. t.2. the part. 
being implied, which was expressed at the beginning of v. 19. Comp. 
4:14, 5: 10. 7: 17, 20, 26. 8:1. “Agee uéyar is the same as 77D 
by53,, high priest, a Hebraism. “nt tov oizoy tov Geov, comp. 3: 
1—6. It designates here the spiritual house of God, i. e. Chris- 
tians. 

22. Toovsozoimeda, let us draw nigh, i. e. 1 $0, which is 
implied. The manner of the expression is borrowed from approach 
to the most holy place in the temple, where God peculiarly dwelt. 

Mere alndivng....nistews, with a true heart, in full confi- 
dence. °Alknbiyyg means, sincere, faithful, true, and designates sin- 
_ cerity of Christian profession, faithful attachment to Christianity, 
in opposition to an insincere or an apostatising state of mind. ITAy- 
eogooia means, a full measure. Ilinoogogia niotews means, un- 
wavering, undoubling faith, a fulness of faith which leaves no room 
for apostasy or skepticism. How exactly this exhortation was adapt- 
ed to the state of the Hebrews, it is easy to perceive. 

"E@oavriopevoe .... movnoas, being purified as to our hearts 
from a consciousness of evil, lit. being sprinkled as to our hearts, etc. 
The expression is borrowed from the rites of the law, agreeably to 
which, very many ceremonial purifications, as we have seen, were 
made by the sprinkling of blood either upon persons or utensils. 
This was external. But when the writer says here, é@éavrvomevoe 
tac xagdiac, he designates spiritual, internal purification, and shews 

VOL. II. 3] 


242 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 22, 23. 





that he is not speaking of any external rites. This internal purifi- 
cation is effected by the blood of Jesus, with which Christians are 
figuratively said to be sprinkled. But the construction, ég¢avreo- 
Mévoe....a0..,. shews that the participle éggavzeouevos is to be 
taken in the secondary or metaphorical sense, i.e. purified from, 
cleansed from. 

Suvednoewe wovnoas, a consciousness of evil, or, a conscience 
oppressed with evil or sin. Perhaps both senses are included ; for 
both are characteristic of Christian sincerity and full faith, which is 
incompatible with a consciousness of evil designs, and which frees 
men from an oppressive sense of past evil, by inspiring them with 
the hope of pardon. 

23. Kai Achounevor....xadaom, having also our bodies washed 
with pure water; another expression, borrowed from the frequent 
washings prescribed by the Levitical law, for the sake of external 
purification. See Ex. 29:4. 40:31, 32. Lev. 16:4. also chap. vi. xiv. 
xv. et alibi. It seems to me, that here is a plain allusion to the use 
of water in the initiatory rite of Christian baptism. This is alto- 
gether consonant with the method of our author, who is every where 
comparing Christian institutions with Jewish ones. So, in the case 
before us, he says, ‘ The Jews were sprinkled with blood in order 
that they might be purified so as to have access to God; Christians 
are internally sprinkled, 1. e. purified by the blood of Jesus. The 
Jews were washed with water, in order to be ceremonially purified 
so as to come before God ; Christians have been washed by the pu- 
rifying water of baptism.’. So Ananias exhorts Saul to be baptized — 
and wash away his sins, Acts 22: 16. In this latter case, and in 
that before us, the phrase is borrowed from the legal rite of washing 
for purification. In Heb. 10: 23, no particular stress is to be laid 
on the mere external rite of washing the body ; for: the connexion 
shews, that the whole is designed to point out the spiritual qualifi- 
cations of sincere Christians for access toGod. But the manner of 
expression turns wholly upon a comparison with the Jewish rites. 

Karéyousy rv omodhoytar ..... énayyechapevos, let us hold fast 
the hope which we profess ; for faithful is he who has promised. ‘O- 
_ pohoyiay means, profession or confession of the Christian religion, 
which is here called £Aridos, in reference to the hopes which it oc- 
casions or inspires. The idea is, ‘ Let us firmly retain our profes- 
sion of that religion, which fills us with hope respecting future re- 
wards and happiness.’ 4 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 23—25. 243 





Thovos yao 6 énayyerhamevos, i. e. let us firmly adhere to our 
religion, because God, the author of those promises which it holds 
forth, will certainly perform them; he is faithful, i. e. true to his 
word, and altogether worthy of confidence in respect to his promi- 
ses. 

24. Kal xaravomper .... évymv, let us also bear in mind one 
another, so as to excite to love and good works. Karavoomuer, con- 
sider attentively, have a regard to, think upon or bear in mind. 
The writer means, that it is the duty of the Hebrews to cherish a 
mutual spirit of interest or concern for each other; and this, in 
such a way as would be the means of mutually exciting each other 
to more distinguished benevolence and good works. The perils 
to which they were exposed, rendered such advice very timely. 

25. My EynatarelmOvtEs .... nagvaxahouvres, not forsaking 
the assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom of some is), but 
admonishing [one another]. “Hyxoradetnovres is in the same con- 
struction with xeravommey in v. 24, and consequently agrees with 
nets understood. “Havrovy relates to the first person plural here ; 
as it does elsewhere, e.g. Rom. 8: 23. 1 Cor. 11: 31. 2 Cor. 1: 9. 
10: 12, 14. In like manner, nagaxaAovrres requires addnious to 
be mentally supplied after it; which is expressed after xaravow- 
uev. That aaoaxaiewm means, to admonish, any common lexicon 
will shew. The whole sentence is in the usual manner of the wri- 
ter, who very frequently employs xo/ywovg in warnings and admoni- 
tions. 

Kel rooovrm uadhov .... rjuéoav, and this [do] so much the 
more, as ye see the day approaching. That is, be more earnest and 
constant, in mutual admonition and efforts to excite each other to 
Christian diligence and perseverance, in proportion as the time 
draws near, when the judgments denounced against the Jewish na- 
tion, by the Saviour, will be executed. “Hyugoav, day, is doubtless 
an elliptical expression for zjuggay xugiov, 717 217; a very com- 
mon expression of the Hebrew writers, for a time of distress, of 
chastisement ; a time in which God executes the threats which 
have been uttered by his prophets. Comp. Ps. 37: 13. 1 Sam. 26: 
10. Ezek. 21: 25. 13: 5. Job 18: 20. 24: 1. Amos 5: 18. Jer. 30: 
7. Joel 1: 15. Is. 2: 12. Rev. 16: 14, et alibi. Now as Christ had 
foretold the destruction of the Jewish temple and nation, (which 
could not be unknown to the Hebrew Christians), what could be 


244 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 25, 26. 


more natural than for the apostle to say, ‘ Brethren, do every thing 
in your power to guard against apostasy. And this the more, be- 
cause a return to Judaism would now be very ill timed; the sea- 
son is near, when the Jewish temple and state are to be destroyed.’ 
All this is surely very apposite to the case in hand. 

But if we should suppose, (with not a few of the recent com- 
mentators), that the writer here alludes to the day when Christ 
should reappear and commence a visible reign on earth, (which 
they suppose the apostles to have believed, in common with many 
individual Christians of early times), then I could not perceive so 
much force in the apostle’s argument. It would run thus; ‘ Be 
very strenuous in using all means to guard against defection from 
Christianity to Judaism; and this so much the more, because, in 
a little time, Christ will commence his visible reign on earth. I 
will not deny, that the hope of reward for perseverance in Christian 
virtue, to be bestowed under this new order of things, might ‘be 
used as an argument to dissuade from apostasy ; but plainly, the 
argument as above stated is more cogent, and more to the writer’s 
purpose. How it can be proved to any one, after he has read and 
well considered Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, that 
this apostle believed in the cmmediate and visible advent of Christ, 
is more than I am able to see. 

For thése reasons, I hesitate not to apply the phrase, »ueoar 
éyyifovouy, to the time in which the Jewish state and temple were 
to be brought to an end. 7 

26. “Exovolme yao... . Bvola, moreover, should we voluntarily — 
make defection fr om our jalteions after receiving the knowledge of 
the truth, no more sacr ifice for sin remaineth. “Exovoiws, 1 appre- 
hend, is not to be construed here with metaphysical exactness, but 
has reference to the common and acknowledged distinction in the 
Jewish law between the sins of oversight or inadvertence, (m3 D), 
and those of presumption. For the first class, see Lev. 4: 2; 13, 
22, 27. Num. 15: 27—29; for the second, Num. 15: 30, 31, where 
the presumptuous offender is described by the expression, WX, 
MI TA Mwy, who acts with a high hand. That this is the kind 
of offence to which the apostle alludes, is evident; for he distin- 
guishes it expressly from the sin of oversight or inadvertence, 
(33), by saying, that it is committed after being enlightened by 
the gospel. ‘Exovoeims means then, deliberately, with forethought, 


, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 26—29. 245 


nn a UUdEttEIUEI SUES EIIUEUnEInnSSSSEddS Sn 


with settled intention, and not by merely sudden and violent im- 
pulse, or by oversight. 

That cuagravovrwyr, in this case, refers to the sin of apostasy, 
is quite plain from the context and the nature of the case, as well 
as from the object which the writer has in view. AAnPelac, true 
doctrine, i. e. the gospel, Christian instruction. 

Ovx éru.... Ovoia, i.e. if you make defection from Christian- 
ity, and renounce your hope and trust in the atoning sacrifice of 
Christ, no other is provided, or can be provided, for you. No oth- 
er makes real atonement for sin; this being renounced, therefore, 
your case is desperate. The sacrifice under the new covenant is 
never, like the Jewish offerings, to be repeated. Apostasy from 
your present religion, then, is final perdition. 

27. Dofeoa df ug... . Unevavrious, but a kind of fearful ex- 
pectation of punishment, yea, of burning indignation [awaits us], 
which will consume the adversaries. Koioews often means, condem- 
nation, and sometimes the consequences of it, i.e. punishment, as 
here. Zilog mvgog is equivalent to the Hebrew ANIP WN, Zeph. 
1: 18, which means vehement displeasure, severe punishment, fierce 
flames. Both xdozy and §yhog are nominatives to amodsimerae un- 
derstood. “Ho@isev, consume, devour, destroy, like the Hebrew 
>on, Deut. 32: 22. So Homer, It. xxii. 182, MaVTAS MUO éEOViEL. 
“Ynevavriovs designates all who oppose themselves to the character, 
claims, and kingdom of Christ. 

28. “AGnrjous tig .... anodrvioxer, whosoever violated the 
law of Moses, suffered death without mercy, in case there were two 
or three witnesses. 'The meaning is not, that every transgression 
of the Mosaic law was punishable with death, but that in all the 
cases, which were of a capital nature, death without reprieve or 
pardon was inflicted, where sufficient testimony could be had. See 
Num. 15: 30, 31. 

‘Eni dvoiv 7 revot paorvow, see Deut. 17: 6. 19: 15. The 
Hebrew "5 by is rendered éai by the Seventy; and well, for én 
denotes, in case that, on the condition that, any thing is done or 
happens. ‘The meaning plainly is, ‘provided two or three wit- 
nesses testify to a crime worthy of death.’ ” 

29. IToow, doxeive .... xaranarnous, of how much sorer pun- 
ishment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden un- 
der foot the Son of God. Aoxeirs implies an appeal, on the part 


246 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 29. 


of the writer, to the conscience and judgment of his readers, who, 
it is taken for granted, will decide according to his own views, in 
respect to the point in question. °4£cwOyoerae is applied either 
to desert of reward or of punishment ; just as we say, in English, 
‘The man is worthy of reward,’ or, ‘ worthy of death.’ 

Karanatrnous signifies, to treat with contempt, to spurn at, to 
treat with contumely. Apostasy from the Christian religion im- 
plies this; and the peculiar criminality of it is here argued, from 
the superior claims which Christ has, on every account, to regard 
and fidelity. 

Koi 10 ainue.... %y1a00n, and hath regarded the blood of the 
covenant, by which he hath been consecrated, as unclean. The mode 
of expression is taken from the Jewish rites. When the people of 
Israel renewed their covenant with God, Moses sprinkled them 
with blood, Heb. 9: 19, 20. Ex. 24: 8. This is called the blood of 
the covenant. So under the new covenant, when Christians are 
consecrated to the service of Christ, and make an open profession 
of his religion, (as the people of Israel did of theirs), they are fig- 
uratively said to be sprinkled or cleansed with the blood of Jesus ; 
comp. Heb. 9: 14. 10: 22. 18: 20. -1 Cor. 11: 25. 1 John 1: 7. 
1 Pet. 1: 19. Rev. 1:5. And as they enter into covenant with 
Christ, at such a time, pledging themselves to obedience and _ fidel- 
ity, so the blood with which they are said to be sprinkled, is called 
the blood of the covenant. The sense of the expression is plainly 
spiritual, but the form of it is borrowed from the Jewish ritual. 

Kowov nynouueros, regarding it as common or unclean, i. e. | 
-as blood not consecrated, but like any common blood ; therefore, 
as having no consecrating or cleansing power, as not having set 
apart those, who were sprinkled with it, for the peculiar service of 
God in the gospel, nor laid them under peculiar obligations to be 
devoted to the cause of Christ. 

Ey o nyLaodn, by which he has been consecrated, i. e. to Christ, 
set apart for his service; another expression borrowed from the 
Jewish rite of consecrating things to the service of God in the tem- 
ple, by sprinkling them with blood. See on 9: 22. 

Kai ro avevpa rns yaouros évuBoloas, and hath done despite 
to the Spirit of grace. °EvuGyioag designates the idea of treating 
with spite, or malignity, or contempt; and is nearly equivalent to 
zaranatnous above. IIvevua ry¢ yaourog means, either the gra- 





COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 29, 30. Q47 





cious Spirit, or the Spirit who bestows grace, i. e. religious, spiritual 
favours and gifts. Comp. 1 Cor. 12: 4—11. But many commen- 
tators interpret mvevuo HS yaorz0g, as meaning simply grace or 
gospel blessings. But this does not accord with the idiom of our 
epistle ; comp. 6: 4, where apostates are described as having been 
méroyous mvsvuaros ayiov. The question, however, whether 
nveuwo here means agent or influence, is not so easily settled ; for 
the sense is good and apposite, interpreted in either way. I in- 
cline to adopt the former meaning. 

30. This awful warning the apostle follows up with a quotation 
from Scripture, descriptive of the tremendous nature of the punish- 
ment threatened. Ovdumev yoo .... xvovos, surely, we know him 
who hath said, To me belongeth punishment, I will inflict it. The 
passage is quoted from Deut. 32: 35, nbw Dp: "5, to me belong- 
eth punishment and retribution. ’ Exdlunors, Hike the Hebrew pa, 
literally means vengeance, revenge. But as this is evidently sites 
of God only avSownone9we, the meaning is, that God does that 
which is analogous to what men do when they avenge themselves, 
i.e. he inflicts punishment. ‘The idea is rendered intense, by the 
subsequent intimation, that the almighty, eternal God will inflict 
such punishment. 

Ayet xigvog are words of the apostle, not of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, and are probably added here, to shew the end of the quota- 
tion made, and to enforce the threatening; for in the same way, 
the Hebrew prophets often expressed themselves when they utter- 
ed comminations, adding to them mist Ons, thus saith Jehovah. 

Kai nod .... Aaov avrov, and again, “ The Lord will judge 
his people.” This quotation may be either from Deut. 32: 36, or 
Ps. 135: 14, both places containing the same expression. If it be 
from the former place, then it is on account of the clauses that in- 
tervene between the first quotation and this, that the writer says, 
xot made. If from the latter, then the reason for subjoining xac 
nadeyv, is still more evident. 

Kovwvet means here, as often, to pass sentence of condemnation, 
to subject to punishment, to punish. The corresponding oziyos in 
the Hebrew clearly shews that such is the sense of the original 
71); for it runs thus, both in Deut. 32: 36 and Ps. 135: 14, by? 
pan? 333, and on his servants will he take vengeance. Probably 
the expression in Ps. 135: 14, is a mere quotation of Deut. 32: 36. 


# 


248 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 3]1—33. 





31. Well may the writer add, gofeoov ....wvrog, it is a 
fearful thing, to fall into the hands of the living God. °Euneceiv 
sig Tag yeioas, I72 >D2, means, to be at the disposal of his vindic- 
tive power, i. e. of his punitive justice. It is a Hebraistic mode of 
expression, for the classic writers say, meoeiv Un0 tas yelous. 
Zaveog probably here means, ever-living, as it commonly does 
elsewhere, when applied to God. This idea, moreover, augments 
the dreadful nature of the punishment; which is altogether appo- 
site to the writer’s design. 

32. The writer now proceeds to enforce his admonition against 
apostasy, by holding up to the Hebrews encouragement to perse- 
vere from the experience of former days, when they remained stead- 
fast amid many trials and sufferings. 

Avapyuvnouecde O& tas mgotegoy .... nadnuarwyr, call to 
mind, now, former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye en- 
dured a great contest with sufferings. That is, ‘ Faint not, be not 
discouraged, at the prospect of trials. Look back to the time, 
when ye patiently endured 'severer trials than ye now suffer, and 
still persevered. Continue to do as you have already done.’ 

“Huéoas, like the Hebrew p49. is often used for time, season, 
indefinitely. Wwreodevtes refers to the illumination which they 
received, when the knowledge of the Christian religion was first 
imparted to them. What the e&Anove naPnuarwy was, is explain- 
ed in the verses which follow. 

33. Touro mév .... Gearorlduevor, partly because ye ‘were 
made.a public spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions. Touro . 
wey... oUt0 Oé correspond, and when thus related bear the 
sense which is here given to them. ‘“Ovecdcouoig refers to the re- 
proachful appellations and language, addressed to Christians by 
their persecutors 5 #A/yieov, to the various sufferings inflicted upon 
them by the same. In this way, they were exposed to public view, 
Seatorlouevor, i.e. held up to the world as persons worthy of re- 
proach and ill-treatment, or made a spectacle to the world as suf- 
ferers of these things, and thus loaded with disgrace. 

Tovro 0... . yevundévtas, and partly, because ye were asso- 
- ciated with those who were thus treated. That is, a part of their 
e&PAnovg consisted in the sympathy which they were called to ex- 
ercise towards others, who were reproached and _ persecuted. 
"_dvaoteépouct I have rendered as having a passive sense here, 


pe. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. LO: 33—36. 249 


viz. who were thus treated ; and so many critics render it. Still it 
would be difficult to find a classical example of giving to this verb 
a passive sense, inasmuch as it is commonly used in the middle 
voice, and employed as a verb neuter deponent. I have translated _ 
ad sensum. “ 

34. Kai yoo... . ovvenaSjoare, for ye did truly sympathize 
with those who were prisoners. Instead of deoutiors, prisoners, 
some manuscripts and editions, with several of the fathers, have 
deouerg wou; which is the reading of the received text, and is pre- 
ferred by Matthiae, Michaelis, Carpzoff, Noesselt, and others. 
But dzouiorg has the weight of authority in its favour; it is suffi- 
ciently consonant with the context; and it is, perhaps, on the 
whole, more natural to suppose the writer to have spoken of “ sym- 
pathizing with prisoners,” than ‘“ with bonds.” There is no im- 
portant objection, however, to the latter expression; and if Paul be 
the writer of our epistle, deouois wou gives a very emphatic mean- 
ing. : 

Kai ryv aonayny.... nooosdeéaode, and cheerfully endured 
the plundering of your own property. This was a part of the 
@hiweeg, which they had suffered in former times. 

Twaoxovees éyew.... wévovoav, knowing that ye have for 
yourselves, in heaven, a possession of a better and more lasting na- 
ture. ‘“Eovroig, dativus commodi. “ Yragéw, any thing possessed, 
estate, property. Kgeirtova, better than earthly possessions, i. e. 
spiritual, heavenly, not material and earthly. Mevovoar, enduring, 
permanent, not perishable, fleeting, temporary, like all earthly pos- 
sessions. 

35. My anoBadyre .... peyedny, cast not away then your 
confidence, which will obtain a great reward. 'That. is, act as you 
formerly did, and thus gain possession of the xge(rrova xai mévou- 
Say viageer. 

36. ‘Ynouovns yao... . émayyehtav, ye have need, no doubt, of 
patience, in order that when ye have done the will of God, ye may 
receive the promised blessing. Patience they needed, because of 
the many trials and temptations, to which they were still exposed. 
Tug, surely, truly, and (which is equivalent) it is true, no doubt. 
The writer means as much as to say, ‘I readily concede, that pa- 
tience is requisite, in your present circumstances, in order that 
you should persevere.’ Jo do the will of God, here, is to obey the 

VOL. II. 32 


* 


250 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 36—38. 





requirement to believe and trust in Christ. “Anayyediav, thing 
promised, reward proffered ; for the promise itself they had already 
received. ‘Enayyediav here, and uio0anodoolwr inv. 35, both re- 
fer to the unagéwy xosirrova xai uévovoay mentioned in v. 34, and 
which is there represented as promised to them, in case of obedi- 
ence. 

37. "Lire yao wingov .... yooriet, however, yet a very little 
while, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. Thatis, 
the Messiah (0 goyouevog) will speedily come, and, by destroying 
the Jewish power, put an end to the sufferings which your perse- 
cutors inflict upon you. Comp. Matt. xxiv. “Ooov doov is an in- 
tensive form of expression, which is applied either to things great 
or small, like 4&7, 1N72. It is employed in the like way, howev- 
er, by the classic Greek authors, ‘The whole phrase resembles 
that in Hab. 2:3, “N78 N27 N2 1D for it (viz. the vision) 
will surely come to pass, it will not delay. If, however, it be an 
actual quotation, the application of the words is different from that 
of the original, and the writer designed merely to use the language 
to express his own ideas. In fact, the Septuagint version of the 
passage in Habakkuk, differs slightly from the words used by the 
apostle. It runs thus, Ore goyouevog n&er, nal ov uy yoovion. It 
seems quite probable, (considering the quotation from Hab. 2: 4, 
which follows), that the apostle had the Hebrew expression above 

_ quoted in his mind. But it seems equally plain, also, that he has 
made use of it only as the mediunt of expressing his own particular 
idea, and not as a designed quotation used according to the exact. 

- idea of the original. I have marked it as a quotation, however, in 
my version, because the words appear to be quoted. 

38. “O dé dinavos éx niorems Cyjoeres, the just, too, shall live by 
faith. In Hab. 2:4, it is sm2my 1n297N2 P2sX1, which (if render- 
ed according to the accents) will be, The just by faith shall live, 
i.e. the just man who has faith shall be preserved. .The expres- 
sion in our verse is capable of the same translation, and Dr. Knapp 
has pointed it so as to be construed in this way. But I apprehend, 
after all, that this is not the meaning of either the Hebrew or Greek 
phrase. Jaith is put here as the means of preservation, in opposi- 
tion to apostasy or defection, in the other part of the verse, which 
is the means of destruction or disapprobation. ‘ A persevering 
confidence or belief in Christ,’ (the writer means to say), ‘ will be 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 38. 251 


the means of preservation, when the Lord shall come to execute his 
judgments upon the Jewish nation.’ So the Seventy understood 
the phrase, which they have rendered, 0 02 dizewog éx alorews wov 
fjosra ; as if they read °73372N3 instead of In2772N3. The mean- 
ing of &% miotews wou, must of course be, by faith or confidence in 
me, which expresses the condition of being saved, rather than the 
peculiar character of the person who is saved. I understand the 
expression, in Hebrew and in our epistle, in a similar way. If the 
apostle meant to quote here, it is evident that he has not adhered 
to the text of the Septuagint. 

Kai éav vnoorethnrae.... év aur, but if any one draw back, 
my soul hath no pleasure in him. 1 hesitate whether to translate 
“at here as the disjunctive but, or to consider it as an elliptical ex- 
pression for zai A¢yeu, i.e. nal Aéyer 0 Geog vel 7 yougn. The lat- 
ter resembles the usage of this epistle; see 1: 10. 10:.17. The 
former sense, (xai but), is quite common in. the New Testament 
writers. Either method of interpretation is consistent with idiom, 
and with the scope of the writer. I have, on the whole, preferred 
the antithetic form of the sentence, and rendered xai, but. 

"Eav vnooreiAntas x,t. 1. seems plainly to be a quotation from 
Hab. 2: 4. The apostle, however, has changed the order of the 
verse, quoting the latter part of it first, and the former part last. 
The original Hebrew runs thus, 32 7U53 SW. ND App 45N, 
behold the scornful, his mind shall not be happy + ; or (as Gesenius 
translates) See! he whose soul is unbelieving shall, on account of 
this, be unhappy. 'The Seventy, who have rendered the Hebrew 
in exact accordance with the words of our epistle, must have read 
‘wp? here, as they did °n2272N23 in the clause. preceding. This is 
the more probable reading, but it cannot now be critically defend- 
ed. We can only say, dherefateh that the quotation of the apostle 
is, on general grounds, ad sensum, but not ad literam. The senti- 
ment of the Hebrew, is, that the scorner or unbeliever of that day 
should be unhappy; the sentiment of the apostle, that the unbe- 
liever, i. e. the apostate Christian who renounces his religion, shall 
incur divine disapprobation.. The same sentiment lies at the foun- 
dation, in both cases. Such disapprobation the last clause express- 
es, ovx evdoxel % Wuyn wou év avt@, where the negative form of 
expression is employed, (as often in sacred and also classical writ- 


4 
a 





252 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 38, 39. 


ings), instead of the affirmative, i.e. ‘he shall be an object of my 
displeasure.’ iy 

39. “Husic dé ovx ....anwhevav, but we are not of those 
draw back to destruction. ‘Yrooroiye is the abstract noun, shrink- 
ing back, timidity, withdrawing ; and (as is common) the abstract 
is here put for the concrete, i.e. for persons who withdrew or shrink 
back, viz. from their Christian profession. The consequence of 
such withdrawing is enwisva; see vs. 26, 27. , 

“Alda mistews, Eig MEQUTOInOLW Wuy7s, but of those who believe, 
to the salvation of the soul. Isgenoinoey means lit. obtaining, ac- 
quiring, possessing. But as it is here placed in antithesis to a7w- 
Aevay, it plainly means, saving, or salvation. Iictewe, faith, belief, 
is an abstract noun used instead of a concrete, in the same manner 
as Umoorosns above. 


, o 
COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 1. Em 





_ Having mentioned faith, or belief, confidence, as a peculiar and most important character- 
istic of those who persevere in the Christian religion, so as to secure their salvation ; the wri- 

now proceeds, with great force and propriety, to make his appeal to the Old Testament 
‘Scriptures, i in order to shew that faith or confidence in the divine promises has, in all ages, 
been the means of perseverance in true religion, and consequently of salvation. In 10: 34—39, 
the apostle had exhorted his readers to persevere in waiting for the rewards of a future world, 
Ureageww év ovoavots zQElTTova val Wevovoay .. . . meoFaTodoGiay meyeanv.... 
Try ayyehiav. He now goes on to shew more fully, that the very nature of faith and the 
character of believers demand this. All believers, in every age, have done so; and the He- 
brews ought to follow their example. See on the nature of the faith, brought to view in this 
chapter, Vol. I. p. 184. e. seq. 


CHAP. XI. 


1. The general nature of faith is first explained. ” Hore 02 mio- 
rig... . Bhetouevor, now faith is confidence in respect to things ho- 
ped for, [and] convincing evidence of things not seen. “Ynooraces, 
confidence, confident expectation. Others, with Chrysostom, ‘ Faith 
gives reality or substance to things hoped for.’ The sense is good ; 
but the shade of meaning is not exactly hit. If this were the idea 
of vmdoraoes, we might expect the antithetic word to be cowperwr 
or avidwy, incorporeal or immaterial things, instead of éAneCopevov. 
The use of vadoracce, in the sense of confidence, etc. belongs to 
the later Greek, and is frequent in the New Testament. This 
sense is evidently appropriate here. The writer had just been ex- 
horting his readers not to cast away their confidence or boldness, 
which would ensure a great reward, 10: 35. If any one should ob- 
ject to this exhortation, that the objects of reward were all future 
and unseen ; the reply is, that ‘ the very nature of belief or faith, im- 
plies confidence in respect to objects of this nature. All the pa- 
triarchs and prophets possessed such faith.’ “ZAncCouévwy means, 
things future which are the objects of hope, and not of present frui- 
tion. The things future, are the rewards which have just been 
mentioned above. 

"Eheyyos, demonstration, proof, convincing evidence. This last 
idea I have expressed in the translation. The meaning is, that 
faith in the divine word and promises, is equivalent to, or supplies 
the place of, proof or demonstration, in regard to the objects of the 
unseen world, i. e. it satisfies the mind respecting their reality and 
importance, as proof or demonstration is wont to do. 


~ 


iw. 
254 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 1—83. 


That the faith here brought to view, and adverted to through 
chap. x1. is not specifically what some theologians call saving faith, 
viz. faith in Christ, in an appropriate and limited sense, is eyident 
from the nature of the examples which are subjoined by the write 
e.g. vs. 3, 4, 5, 7,8, 11, etc. In this chapter, faith is belief or 
confidence generally in divine declarations, of whatever nature 
they may be; for it does not always have respect even to promises, 
or to the future; e.g. v. 3. Now the same confidence in what 
God declares, respecting subjects of such a nature as are brought 
to view in this chapter, would lead the person who exercises it, to 
confidence in all which God might declare respecting the Messiah, 
and consequently to belief in Christ. It is then called, by theolo- 
gians, saving faith. But it should be remembered, that this is on- 
ly a convenient technical phrase of modern theology ; not one em- 

. ployed by the sacred writers. The true and essential nature of 
faith, is confidence in God, belief in his declarations ; and whether 
this be exercised by believing in the Scripture account of the cre- 
ation of the world ; or, as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, 
and others, exercised it, in respect to specific objects; or, by be- 
lieving on the Messiah; it is evidently the same disposition of mind, 
in all cases. It is confidence in God. It is, therefore, with perfect 
propriety, that our author here excites the Hebrews to persevere in 
their Christian faith, by various examples which exhibit the power 
of faith in the ancient worthies, as a principle of pious and virtuous 
belief and action. ; 

(2. Ey ravrn yoo... + mQEoBUTEQOL, on account of this, moreo- 
ver, the ancients were commended. Meaorvoém not unfrequently 
means, to applaud, praise, commend, openly signify approbation. 
See Wahl’s Lex. no. 2. This is evidently the sense of the word 
here. - 

3. IMoree voowusy.... yeyovevat, by faith, we perceive that the 
worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things which are 
scen were not made from those which appear. IItoret, confidence in 
the account which the Scriptures (viz. Gen. 1.) give of the creation. 
It is confidence in God, too; for there could be no other witness of 
what was then done ; at least there could be none of the human 
race. Noovmer, we perceive, apprehend, attain to an apprehension 
of. Katnoriodac, ordinare, disponere, not simply to create or bring 
into being, but also to fit, prepare, form, i.e. reduce to form and 








i) 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. 255 





order. ” Avwvas, worlds, i.e. the universe, °7>49 ; see on Heb. 1: 
2. That aéovac, in this case, cannot mean seculum or aevum is suf- 

iently plain ; for in what tolerable sense could the writer say, that 
seculum or aevum was not made é% gatvouevoy, 1. q. was made éx 
BH Garvouevory, or, out of nothing? That the assertion in the ne- 
gative form, is of the same import as if it were of the positive form, 
might be easily shewn by appeal to a multitude of the like cases of 
Acrorne, in the Scriptures. ‘ John confessed, and denied not, but 
confessed, John 1: 20;’ where ovx% 7jov7joaro plainly conveys the 
same idea as wuodoyyoe. As to classical usage, the commentary on 
the next clause may be consulted. In what sense, too, could seculum 
or aevum be called Plexoueva? This word means, objects visible 
to the sight, or, palpable to the senses, 1. e. material objects. Wau- 
vOueve means the same thing; there being no more difference be- 
tween the two words, in Greek, as characterising objects, than there 
is between seen and apparent, in English. The assertion of the 
writer then is, that ‘ visible objects, 1. e. the visible creation, did 
not spring from objects that were apparent,’ i. e. that the visible cre- 
ation was not made out of matter before existing; which is the 
same as to say, that the world was created, brought into existence, 
by the word of God simply, and was not a mere reducing to order 
materials that before existed ; see on the succeeding clause of the 
verse, in the sequel. At all events, the idea of a seculum or aevum 
‘ being framed (xatnorioGar) by the word of God,’ presents an in- 
congruity of which no example can be found in the sacred writers. 
Equally incongruous would émoinoe rovs aéavas, in 1: 2, be, if aé- 
wv were to be rendered seculum. “Pyuate Gov, the command of 
God; comp. Gen. 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26. Ps. 33: 6. 2 Pet. 
3: 5. 

Eig co wn &% pawopévor ta Bhenoueve: yeyovevat, a controvert- 
ed, and somewhat difficult expression. If we construe it as the text 
now stands, the «7; must naturally be joined with yeyoveves, and it 
must be rendered, so that things visible were not made of things 
which do appear. Accordingly, Pierce insists on this construction, 
and maintains that the sense is, ‘So that things visible might ap- 
pear not to have been made of things apparent, i. e. out of pre-ex- 
isting matter.’ 

Those who adopt a different construction of the passage main- 
tain, that e/¢ 70 um éx Gacvousyww may be translated, as if it were 


256 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. 





written e/g ro éx uy gatvouevor. That such a metathesis of the 
negative «7, or its equivalent ov, ovx, is allowable, or at least that it 
is not uncommon, they endeavour to shew by appealing to exam- 
ples; e. g. 2 Macc. 7: 28, dre ovn 2& Gyr wy énoinoer aura Oo 
20S, which plainly means, ‘ God made them [heaven and earth] 
from things that do not exist,’ i. e. out of nothing. So Arrian, de 
exp. Alex. VII. 23, “These things I do not blame, unless that 0 v% 
éxi weyadors weyadwe Oveonovdatero, he was too much oceupi- 
ed with small matters ;’ where ovx seems to qualify ueyahous. Plu- 
tarch, Paedagog. IX. 15, “ I should say that promptitude of speak- 
ing on any matter is not to be altogether disapproved; nor, on the 
other hand, ravryy ovx éni akiows coxeiv, is it to be practised in 
respect to trifling subjects.” So the Greek ovx zy sivas, he said 
he would not come. Arrian, Anab. 1.5, 4 ovx én yonveae év 
hoyw rideoPus Avraguaras, he said that the Autariatae were not 
to be put into the account. Polyb. p. 1331, rove un peoxortac 
amolvery, saying that they were not to be absolved. If the examples 
where gyi is used, be abstracted from the others, there are still a 
sufficient number, they aver, to shew that a metathesis of the ne- 
gative particle 47, is not without parallels. 

Chrysostom also transposed «7 here, and found no difficulty in 
it. He paraphrases it thus, 2 ovx dvtwy ta Ovta énolnoey 0 Hos" 
EX TWY UY Powvouevov, Ta Povousvor ex THY wh VPEGTWTMY, TA 
dgpectara. So the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, wall and most of 
the later interpreters. 

That the metathesis of an, in this case, so as to construe it in con- 
nexion with macvouerwy, may be admissible, there can, indeed, be 
but little doubt. Yet it is, after all, unnecessary ; for the phrase 
plainly has the same meaning, when translated agreeably to its pres- 
ent arrangement, if the nature of such a Avrory¢ be well understood. 
There is no need of understanding the examples cited from the clas- 
sics, in a different way. And indeed, take them which way we will, 
(either by way of metathesis in respect to the ovx or m7}, or of join- 
ing the negative with the verb or participle that follows), the sense, 
_ all must admit, is plain, and is substantially one and the same. 
These examples, it must also be admitted, cast sufficient light upon 
the sense of the passage Heb. 11: 3, so as to require no hesitation 
about admitting a meaning so well supported by parallel examples, 
and which, indeed, the context seems to demand. 


ok 


3, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. St 





We may also compare phraseology of a like nature, to be found 
in other parts of Paul’s writings. In Rom. 4: 17, he says, ‘* God 
restores the dead to life, and calls ra jj dvte ws dvta,” i. e. sum- 
mons [to fulfil his own purposes] things that do not exist, as though 
they did exist. In like manner, Philo, in Lib. de creat. mundi, p. 
728, says, ra yao uy Ovta éxadnoev 6 DE0g Eig tO sivas, things 
which existed not, God called into existence. That uy potvouevwr 
is equivalent to 47 dvtwy, needs not to be formally proved. So in 
Hebrew, N72 quod invenitur, is a customary expression for ens, or 
existens ; and nx Nb, for res non existens, nihilum. 

On the whole, then, we must regard the phrase in question as 
equivalent to the expression in our language, ‘ 'The visible creation 
was formed from nothing,’ i. e. it came into existence by the com- 
mand of God, and was not formed out of any pre-existing materials. 
Deus ex nihilo mundum fecit, conveys the same idea. Such a phrase 
does not mean, that nothing was the materiel, out of which the world 
was constructed, for there would be no sense in this ; but it merely 
denies that any such materiel existed. ‘This entirely agrees with 
the preceding clause of the text, which asserts that the command of 
God brought the universe into existence ; and this is altogether con- 
firmed by Gen. 1. Here Moses represents, in v. 1, the heavens and 
earth as first brought into existence by divine power, and afterwards 
as formed and arranged into their present order; comp. Gen. 1: 1, 
with Gen. 1: 2 and the sequel of the chapter. In fact, if the man- 
ner of assertion in our text be strictly scanned, it will be found to be 
more exact and philosophical, than the Latin ex nihilo Deus mundum 
fecit, or the English, God made the world out of nothing. Each of 
these phrases presents the seeming incongruity of asserting, that no- 
thing was the materiel out of which the world was made. But our 
author is more strictly conformed to philosophical propriety, when 
he says, ‘ Things visible were not made.out of things that are visi- 
ble,’ i. e. the visible creation was brought into existence by the word 
or command of God simply, and was not formed or fitted up out of 
any pre-existing materials. Exactly so do we find the assertion in 
2 Mace. 7: 28, ovx 2 dvtmy énoinoey avta 0 9s0g, God did not 
make them [heaven and earth] out of things existing, i. e. he strict- 
ly created them. 

Well may it be suggested, that faith in the divine word was re- 
quisite to believe this; inasmuch as Thales, Plato, Aristotle, and 

VOL. Il. 33 


258 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3, 4. 


other eminent philosophers who followed not the divine word, in- 
dulged in speculations about the creation of the world, which were 
either very visionary, or quite different from the view which Moses 
has given. 

A, Iiste: nhelova.... 10 Dew, by faith Abel offered to God 
a belter sacrifice than Cain. TTheiove better, more excellent ; so fre- 
quently, e.g. Matt. 6: 25. Luke 12: 23. Matt. 12: 41, 45. Mark 
12: 33.’ Luke 11: 31. Heb. 3: 3. Rev. 2: 19. 

On what account the sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable, 
commentators have speculated much, and assigned a great variety 
of causes. But it may be asked, Does not our text contain a solu- 
tion of this question? Abel made his offering in faith; the impli- 
cation is, that Cain did not. 

Av 7g Enaorvoendn .... Peov, on account of which [faith], he 
was declared to be righteous, God himself commending his oblations. 
How this was done, is not said in Gen. 4: 4. But most probably 
it was by fire sent from heaven, which consumed the sacrifice ; 
comp. Gen. 15: 17. Lev. 9: 24. Judg. 6: 21. 1 Chron. 21: 26. 27: 
1. 1K. 18: 38. The appellation dixacog is given to Abel, in Matt. 
23: 35. 1 John 3: 12. 

Kai dv avrns anoPavay éce hadst, and by it, though dead, he 
continues to speak. Av aurng, viz. by his faith. Aadet and hodel- 
tat are both supported by good authorities. The latter is preferred 
by Grotius, Hammond, Schmidt, Valkenaer, Michaelis, Storr, 
Rosenmueller, Bengel, Griesbach, Schudz, ete; the former, by 
Wetstein, Matthiae, Heinrichs, Knapp, etc. and has the majority 
of manuscripts, versions, and editions, in its favour. Where the 
balance of authority is,‘on the whole, nearly equal, I cannot well 
hesitate to prefer AwAsi to Acdetras. ‘The sense of the latter would 
be equivalent to wegrugeitas, sc. laudatur, is commended. But this 
idea has been twice suggested before in the same verse, by {aOTU- 
osirae and waetugovrt0s....9eov. It is hardly probable that 
it would be a third time repeated. But Aadsi, I apprehend, has 
reference to Gen. 4: 10, where the ‘voice of Abel’s blood is said te 
cry to God from the ground.’ In Heb. 12: 14, also, our author 
represents the blood of Christ and of Abel as speaking, AaAovyte. 
The form of expression only, in our verse, seems to be borrowed 
from the thought in Gen. 4: 10; for here it is the faith of Abel 
which makes him speak after his death, viz. he speaks, by his faith, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 4, 5. 259 





to those who should come after him, exhorting and encouraging 
them to follow his example. In other words, his example of faith 
affords admonition and instruction to succeeding ages. 

5. Ilisrss "Evoy.... 0 9209, by faith Enoch was translated, 
that he might not see death; and he was no more found, because 
God had translated him. Tov wy teiv is equivalent here to s/¢ 10 
un idsiv, or Ova co wy idsiv. The Hebrew has nq>x ink p>, 
God took him, where our author uses weve nx. The original, in 
Gen. 5: 24, says nothing respecting the point, whether Enoch was 
translated alive, or after death. Kai ovy evgtoxero is the Septua- 
gint version of the Hebrew 232°N, he was not, sc. he was no more 
among men. The idea, in the Hebrew and Greek, is for substance 
the same ; for ovy evoioxero means, he was no more to be met with, 
he was no longer extant, (X71 N>) among men. But all the Tar- 
gumists, viz. Onkelos, Jonathan, and the author of the Jerusalem 
Targum, understand Enoch to have been translated without dying. 
So the Comment. Bereschith Rabba, parasch. 25. f. 28. So, pro- 
bably, the Son of Sirach, 49: 14. I may add, that this is a very 
natural deduction, from the brief notice of Enoch’s translation in 
Gen. 5: 24. Early death is commonly represented, in the Old 
Testament, as the punishment of sin ; and that ‘“‘ the wicked should 
not live out half their days,’’ was the persuasion of most good men 
in ancient times. If then Enoch died before translation, how could 
his removal to another world have been regarded-as an evidence of 
his extraordinary piety? The texts to which Dindorf has appealed, 
in his notes added to the commentary of Ernesti, are very far from 
supporting the position, that the ancient Jews regarded premature 
death, as a testimony of heaven in favour of him who was the sub- 
ject of it. Nor is there any need of Rosenmueller’s concession 
here, viz. that the apostle, in his account of Enoch’s removal, has 
accommodated himself to the Jewish traditionary opinions. It may 
indeed be, that a tradition existed among the Jews, that Enoch 
‘did not see death.” But that this was founded in fact, seems to 
be plainly deducible from the manner of the narration in He- 
brew, and the state of opinion, in ancient times, respecting early 
death. 

TIoo yao tH¢....tw Gem, he is commended, also, as having 
_ pleased God before his translation. The Hebrew says, [2073 
DVTSNAKnN ‘Pian and Enoch walked with God, which denotes a 


260 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 5—7. 


state of communion and friendship with God, and implies, of course, 
a complacency in the divine mind with respect to him. The apos- 
tle, therefore, appeals to the sense of the Scriptures, in this case, 
and not to the words. ‘Nor does he mean to say, that the testimo- 
ny respecting Enoch’s pleasing God was given before his transla- 
tion ; but that testimony given, viz. in the divine word, respects his 
having pleased God before his translation. Zvageotéw governs the 
dative. 

6. The writer now suggests the grounds, on which he builds 
the conclusion, that Enoch was translated on account of his fazth ; 
viz, ywois dé miotews .... evageotrnoa, but without faith, it is 
impossible to please [him.] The truth of this he rests upon his own 
declaration, and the common opinion on this subject, which he 
trusted that all his readers entertained. 

Tluorevoo you Osi. ... yiverat, for he who cometh to God, 
must believe that he exists, and that he will reward those who seek 
him. TToooegyouevov to Yew designates him who worships God, 
Dei cultorem; see 7:25. The phraseology is probably derived 
from going up to the temple to worship, in the sanctuary of which 
God dwelt, by his peculiar presence. Some have understood the 
phrase as referring to an approach to God in the invisible world, 
in heaven; but the idea here is like that expressed by the Hebrew 
phrases, going to God, returning to him etc. which usually denote, 
‘ approach in the present world to his spiritual presence.’ 

Toig éx€nrovow avzrov, comp. the Hebrew o7bx wPp2, wT 
p°>N, which are employed to designate the worship and prayers 
of those, who are piously devoted to the service of God. 

The two fundamental truths of all that can properly be called 
religion, are here adverted to. The first is, a belief that God ex- 
ists ; the second, that he is the moral governor of the universe, i. e. 
that he rewards those who are pious, and, consequently, punishes 
those who are not so. He who denies this, denies all that sane- 
tions religion, and makes it binding upon the consciences of men. 

7. Iliotes.... otxov avrov, by faith Noah, being divinely ad- 
monished respecting the future, with reverence prepared an ark for 
the safety of his household. XonuarvoOsis, comp. 8: 5 and Gen. 
6: 13, 14. 7: 1—5. Mydérm Piestomever, i. e. the future flood, no 
signs of which were as yet visible. Hud@PnOsig may be taken 
either in the sense of fearing, viz. the destruction which was com- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11:7, 8. 261 


g; or it may be understood of the reverence which he paid to the 
divine admonition. I have translated it as bearing the latter sense, 
since this makes most directly for the apostle’s object, which is to 
exhibit the faith which Noah exercised with regard to the divine 
warning. 

Lig owrngiav, for the saving, or safety. It is often applied 
to temporal security or deliverance, like the Hebrew yawn. 

Ae ng narénowe .... xAngovomos, by which [faith] “he condemn- 
ed the world, and tea the justification which is by faith. *He 
I refer to aiorewsg, as do Sykes, Heinrichs, Dindorf, and others. 
Koowov means, wicked men, men of a mere worldly spirit ; as often, 
in the New Testament. Noah condemned these, by an example of 
faith in the divine warnings, while the world around him remained 
impenitent and unbelieving. In other words, his conduct con- 
demned theirs. 

‘Eyévero ndnooromos, i. q. éxAngovounose, i.e. obtained, acqui- 
red, became possessor of. So Abraham is, in like manner, said to 
be justified by faith or belief, in Rom. tv., viz. belief in the prom- 
ise of God respecting a future seed. On account of Noah’s faith, 
he was counted p"7%, dixacos, (comp. v. 4 above), or, he was re- 
garded, treated, as dixavos. 

From this verse, then, we may conclude, that faith may be of 
a justifying nature, i. e. such as is connected with the justification 
or pardon of the individual who exercises it, without being specifi- 
cally directed to Christ as its object ; for here, the object of Noah’s 
faith was, the divine admonitions and comminations in regard to 
the flood. This only serves to shew, that faith, in its generic na- 
ture, has been the same in every age; and that it is, essentially, 
a practical belief in divine declarations. 

* 8. IMoree xohovusvog .... xdnoovoutav, by faith Abraham 
obeyed, when called to go forth unto the place, which he was to re- 
ceive for a possession. See Gen. 12: 1—4. Kadovmevog, summon- 
ed, invited, bid. ° Hel Peiy, viz. from his own country and kindred, 
Gen. 12: 1. Tomov means, the land of Canaan, Palestine, the fu- 
ture possession of which was promised to him. His faith, in this 
case, was manifested by believing in this promise. 

Kai ends .... éoyerae, yea, he went forth, not knowing 
whither he was going. Kai 2énd%e adds intensity to the preced- 
ing Unnjxovoe ; and J have translated it accordingly. The mean- 


ing ; 


262 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 8—10. 


ing is, ‘ he even went out, ignorant of the place to which he was 
going ;’ which serves to give a higher idea of the strength of Abra- 
ham’s faith, than if we should suppose him to be well informed re- 
specting the land of Canaan, before he went to it. 

9. Tliorec magm@xnoev .... addoroiay, by faith he sojourned in 
the land of promise, while it belonged to strangers. ITiorer, by 
faith he did this, i.e. by confidence in the promises, which God 
had made respecting the future possession of this land and respect- 
ing his offspring, he was moved to sojourn in Canaan, while it be- 
longed to foreigners. “S§2¢, while, when, as often; see Wahl. “Ad- 
Aorgiay means, that which belongs to another, quod alieni est, non 
sui. 

"Ev oxunvais narounoac .... avrg, dwelling in tents, with 
Isaac and Jacob, who were likewise heirs of the same promise. That 
is, the promise was made to Abraham and his seed. What was 
not fulfilled in him, was to have its accomplishment in them. 
Hence ovyxdnoovouwy, fellow-heirs, joint-possessors, viz. with 
Abraham ; the same promise being made to them as to him, res- 
pecting the land of Canaan, and their future posterity. 

10. “Eésd¢yero yao .... 980g, for he expected a city which hath 
foundations, whose builder and maker is God. @euehiovs éyovoar, 
firmly built, well-founded. The plural, Seuediovg, augments the 
idea of firmness of construction. Ayusovgyog means, originally, 
one who labours for the public good, from djpog publicus, ad popu- 
lum pertinens, and goyov opus. Hence, secondarily, it is transfer- 
red to designate a labourer or artificer of any kind. It is often ap- 
plied by the heathen writers to designate the Divinity; and by 
Philo, Josephus, and the Christian fathers, it is employed as an 
epithet of the true God. Here, however, it is used as nearly a 
synonyme of reyviry¢; the latter conveying the idea of a builder 
skilled in the rules of his art, but djuvoveyds meaning more simply, 
maker, builder, fabricator. 

The meaning of the whole verse most evidently is, that Abra- 
ham looked for a permanent abode in the heavenly country, i. e. 
his hopes and expectations were placed upon the world to come. 
Tt was faith in this, which was édeyyo¢ ov Blexouevoy, and which 
moved him to obey the commands of God, and to do and suffer 
whatever he required. The fact, then, that saints under the Old 
Testament were moved, in their conduct; by considerations that 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 10, 11. 268 








had respect to the invisible world or an immortal state of existence, 
is plainly implied here, by the reasoning of the apostle. See vs. 
14, 16. 

11. Moree xai avrn.... hae, by faith, also, Sarah herself 
received the power of conception. Ilioret, by faith ; how, or when? 
For when God announced to Abraham, that he should have a son 
by Sarah (Gen. 18: 10), she seems to have been in a state of un- 
belief, Gen. 18: 12. But although it is true that Sarah laughed on 
that occasion, and it must be admitted that this was occasioned 
partly by her incredulily, as Gen. 18: 13—15 shews; yet the same 
thing is affirmed of Abraham, Gen. 17: 17. The truth is, the first 
annunciation that a child would spring from them, occasioned, both in 
hisand Sarah’s mind, a feeling of incongruity,of impossibility that the 
course of nature should be so reversed. Subsequent consideration 
brought both to a full belief, in the reality of the promised future 
blessing. The history of this is not expressly given in Genesis, 
with respect to Sarah ; but it is implied. 

Kai avry Sao¢u, Sarah herself also. Kat airy, in this case, 
refers particularly to the fact that Sarah was barren, Gen. 16: 1, 
and that she was far advanced in old age, Gen. 18:11. The 
meaning is, that faith gave even to Sarah, unpromising as her con- 
dition was in respect to offspring, the power of conception, i.e. by 
faith she obtained this blessing. vg xaraPodnjv ongouatos, words 
tortured to the disgust of every delicate reader, by some of the 
critics. Even Wahl says, “she received strength so ro d¢yeoOuu 
onégua xaraBePdyuevor (i.e. by Abraham) sé ryv pojroav.” Did 
this need any supernatural strength? I construe the phrase very 
differently. Karafodyn means, foundation, commencement, begin- 
ning. Now what is the foundation, or commencement oneguerog, 
of offspring or progeny? Conception. The true idea of the 
phrase, then, appears to be fully given by the version above. In 
this view of the phrase, I observe, Dr. Schulz concurs, rendering 
Ovvemey sg xarafodny ongouactos, by das Vermogen zur Emp- 
fangniss, the power of conception. 

Kai mage “xavoov .... énayyethauevov, and this beyond the 
usual time of life; inasmuch as she regarded him as faithful, who 
had thus promised. Kai nage xargdrv, see Gen: 18: 11, inst s0- 
tov x. t. 4, which shews that the apostle considered it as quite cer- 


tain, that Sarah, like her husband, did come to full confidence in 
the divine promise. 


264 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 12, 13. 





12. Avo nai ag évog .... ndnjder, wherefore, even from one 
who was dead too as to these things, there sprung [a seed], like the 
stars of heaven for multitude. 410, on account of which faith, 
viz. of Sarah, or perhaps, of Abraham and Sarah. Kal ag’ evos, 
even from a single individual, is a designed antithesis to the multi- 
tude who are afterwards mentioned. Consequently it heightens 
the description. Kol ravra vevexowuévou means, incapable (ac- 
cording to the ordinary laws of nature) of procreation; zai.... 
VEVEKOOMEVOL, i. e. NOt Only one individual, but one dead also. See 
the same description, in Rom. 4:19. Tudzta is governed by xare 
understood: Kodmws ra aotoa x. t. 4. that is, a very great num- 
ber ; comp. Gen. 15: 5. 22: 17. 

Kai ws 7 appmos .... avagldunros, and like the sand upon the 
shore of the sea, which cannot be numbered, i.e. an exceedingly 
great multitude. Xeilog Oadaoonsg, lit. lip of the sea which means 
the shore. So the word is used by profane Greek writers also; as 
labium is by the Latin ones. So the Hebrew "pw, Gen. 22: 17; 
which compare. . 

13. Kata niorw ....énayyshiag, these all died in faith, not 
having received the blessings promised. Otrot nevteg—who? Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah, mentioned in vs. 8—12; for ovzoe 
cannot well be here extended to all who are mentioned in the pre- 
ceding part of the chapter, because the ‘ promised blessings” were 
those, which were assured to the Hebrew patriarchs. “Anayyedlas, 
not promises, (for these they had received), but blessings promised, 
according to the idiom of this epistle. What were these blessings, 
heavenly or earthly? ‘The sequel will answer this question. 

"Alla m0GOwoEVv .... yn, but seeing them afar off, and joy- 
fully anticipating them, they openly professed themselves to be stran- 
gers and sojourners -en the earth. The application of this whole 
verse, to the expectation of the future possession of Canaan, and of 
a numerous progeny, would be admissible, were it not for the se- 
quel (vs. 14—16), which plainly forbids such an application. In 
addition to the faith of Abraham, and other patriarchs, in the prom- 
ises of God which had respect to temporal blessings, I understand, 
‘the apostle as here asserting, that those ancient worthies also ex- 
ercised confidence in God’s word, respecting the blessings of the 

invisible world; i.e. theirs was Undoraorg éAneComevmy .... Ov 
Sienonévey. Those things which are invisible to the corporeal 


€OMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 13—16. 265 





eye, they saw with the eye of faith, and seeing, hatled them 
with joy (aonacapevor), welcomed them, greeted them or anticipated 
them with gladness, as we joyfully greet or anticipate the approach 
of a beloved friend, or of some distinguished favour. And, look- 
ing forward to them as their chief source of happiness, they openly 
declared themselves to be only strangers and sojourners in the present 
world. That yng, by itself, might refer to the land of Canaan, is 
plain enough; but that it does so refer here, is rendered quite im- 
probable by the sequel. The idea is plainly more general. ITa- 
genidnuos means, a temporary resident among any people, i.e. a 
sojourner. 

14. Oi yao tovadra.... émegnrovor, now they, who thus pro- 
Sess, shew that they are set ahelioas for a country. Tudra heyou- 
TéG, Viz. saying or professing that they were strangers and sojour- 
ners inthe earth. ITaroidu, a fixed or permanent place of resi- 
dence, i. q. nodw mévovoay, 13: 14, or mode Gepedious éxovoay in 
v. 10 above. That this wargig was not of an earthly nature, the 
. writer proceeds to shew. 

15. Kal ei wey éxetvng .... avaxauwat, for had they cherish- 
ed the memory of that [country] from which they came, they had op- 
portunity of returning [thither]. That is, if their native country 
on earth (zezgis), had been an object of affectionate desire, they 
might have easily returned thither, and dwelt there. But this they 
did not ; for, 

16. Nouv 02 ougyovtae .... érovgavion, but now, they were de- 
sirous of a better [country], that is, of a heavenly one. Nir, i. e. 
while they were strangers and sojourners, during the time then. 
present. ‘The explanation of the writer, in respect to the country 
which the patriarchs sought, is so plain, that nothing can add to its 
perspicuity. 

Avo ovn Enoucyivetrae .... 10duy, wherefore God is not asham- 
ed of them, [nor] to be called their God; for he hath prepared a 
city for them. Avo, because, viz. because of the faith which they 
reposed in the promises of God respecting future happiness, or in 
regard to a modev éxovgavioy or wévovoav. To be their God 
means, to be their protector, rewarder, benefactor; comp. Rom. 3: 
29. Rev. 21: 3,7. Ex. 3:6. Zech. 8:8. Gen. 15:1. “Aroiuace 
yao avrorg 710A, i. e. he will reward them, for he has in fact pre- 

VOL. Il. 34 


266 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 16—19. 





pared a m0duy, sc. éxouganioy, for them. By ellipsis 0vx énavoxuves 
Tat is omitted before Seog Enunadsioat avror. 

17... Tliores ngocevnvoyev .... mevoatopevos, by faith, Abra- 
ham, when tried, made an offering of Isaac. Toocevnjvoye, made 
an offering of ; for the act, on the part of Abraham, was essentially 
done, when he had fully resolved to do it, and was proceeding to 
the complete execution of it, Gen. 22: 1-10,  TlesguSonevos (like 
the Hebrew 753) means, either to put to trial, or to tempt, 1. e. soli- 
cit to sin. Which of these senses the word must bear, in any par- 
ticular passage, must depend on the character of the agent who oc- 
casions the trial or temptation, and the objects which he has in 
view. Beyond all question, 403 in Gen. 22: 1, and mecoulouevos 
in our verse, are to be understood in the sense of trial; for God 
is the agent, and “‘ he tempts no man,” i.e. solicits none to sin, 
James 1: 13. ¢ 

Kai tov deeeyevs .... avadetauevos, yea, he who had received 
the promises, made an offering of his only Son. Gen. 22:2. This 
clause is designed to augment the force of the description of Abra- 
ham’s case. It was not simply, that Abraham, in circumstances 
common to others, i. e. surrounded by several children, and with- 
out any special promises, made the offering in question ; but it was 
Abraham, to whom God had repeatedly made promises of a numer- 
ous progeny ; and it was Abraham’s only son, i. e. only son of prom- 
ise, who was the offering which he stood ready to make. 

18. TIoo¢g ov... . ongopa, unto whom’ it had been said, After 
Isaac shall thy seed be named, The Hebrew, in Gen. 21: 12, is 
Pee 72 SOR pmsra, which means, thy seed shall be named after 
Isaac, i. e. thy seed, viz. the seed which is promised to thee, must 
descend only from Isaac. Neither Ishmael, nor the sons of Abra- 
ham by Keturah, could be progenitors of the promised offspring, 
and give name to them. The Septuagint and apostle have render- 
ed the Hebrew preposition 2, in PA¥73, by év, which there means, 
according to, with reference to, after. ‘This is a third circumstance 
added, in order to augment the impression of the reader respecting 
the faith of Abraham. . This patriarch, to whom promises had been 
made, not only offered up his only son, born of Sarah his beloved 
wife, but his only son, on whom all the promises of God respecting 
his future progeny were suspended. 

19.’ Aoyrouevos, Ore xai.... eos, counting that God was 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 117: 19.- 267 





able to raise him even from the dead; i. e. he believed, that, in case 
Isaac should be actually slain and consumed as a burnt-offering, 
God could and would raise him up from the dead, so that the prom- 
ise*made to him would be fulfilled. ‘This was indeed a signal ex- 
ample of the strength of faith, and it deserves the commendation 
which the apostle bestows upon it. 

There are not wanting, however, critics of the present time, 
who attribute this whole transaction of Abraham to his supersti- 
tion, or his heathenish views of sacrifice, or to a dream which he 
erroneously considered as a divine admonition. And in regard to 
the interposition from heaven, which prevented his resolution from 
being executed, they aver, that the accidental discovery of a ram, 
caught by the horns in a thicket, was interpreted by the supersti- 
tious patriarch, as a divine admonition to refrain from proceeding 
with his design. How different all this is, from the views of the 
author who wrote Gen. xxu., of Paul in Rom. ry., and of the wri- 
ter of our epistle, need not be insisted on to any one, who does not 
make his own conceptions about the subject of religion and mira- 
cles, the standard by which the sacred writers are to be tried. 

“OGev avrov.... éxouloaro, whence, comparatively, he obtain- 
ed him, or, whence, as it were, he obtained him. It would occupy 
much room even to glance at the variety of interpretations, which 
have been put on this somewhat difficult phrase. Instead of this, 
I will simply state the one which appears to me altogether the most 
probable and satisfactory. Paul, speaking of the procreation of 
Isaac, in Rom. tv., mentions Abraham as then vevexowmpévov, and 
the véxowouy rns wjroas of Sarah. In v. 12 above, the same apos- 
tle speaks of Abraham as vevexommeévor, and his description of Sa- 
rah, in v. 1], implies the same thing. Now as Isaac sprang from 
Abraham and Sarah, both xara ravra vevexowuevol, what is more 
natural than to suppose, that in our verse this fact is adverted to? 
The sentiment seems to be this; ‘Abraham believed that God 
could raise Isaac from the dead, because he had, as it were, obtain- 
ed him from the dead, i. e. he was born of those who xara ravta 
vezgot 7oav.) Then the whole presents one consistent and appo- 
site sentiment. Abraham believed God could raise his son from 
the dead. Why? He had good reason to conclude so, for God 
had already done what was equivalent to this, or like this; he had 
done this, éy maga8oAn, in a comparative manner, i. e. in a manner 


268 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 19——21. 





that would compare with raising from the dead, when he brought 
about his birth from those who were dead as to the power of pro- 
creation. Tlaoufoiy means, comparison, similitude ; év maooBodn, 
comparatively, in like manner, with similitude, as it were. ‘Thus 
all is easy, natural, and consistent. How forced the other meth- 
ods of construction are, which have been employed here, the rea- 
der may determine for himself, by consulting them. 

It may be made a question, whether éxouiouro refers here, to 
Abrahamn’s having obtained Isaac from the altar of burnt offering, 
where he was as it were dead; or whether the word refers to 
Abraham’s having originally obtained him, viz. at his birth. It 
may be applied to either; but the latter application is far more sig- 
nificant, and accords altogether with the context. The hints for 
this explanation I owe to Dr. Schulz, in his commentary on the 
epistle to the Hebrews. 

20. ore: nei wehiovtrwy .... Hoav, by faith Isaac blessed 
Jacob and Esau, in respect to the future. Tegi wehdovta evioyn- 
oé, lit. blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to future things. The 
sentiment is, ‘ pronounced a blessing upon Jacob and Esau, in re- 
gard to their future condition ;’ which accords with the facts as re- 
lated in Gen. 27: 26—40. It was faith in the promises of God, 
which enabled the dying patriarch to do this. 

21. [orev loxwB.... evdoynos, by faith, Jacob, when about 
to die, blessed each of Joseph’s sons. See Gen. 48: 15, 16. “Anod- 
vnoxwy here, like the present participle in Hebrew, has the mean- 
ing of the Latin future in rus. It was not in the act of dying, that 
Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, as Gen. 48: 8-22 shews; but 
it was when on his death bed, that both they and the twelve sons 
of Jacob were blessed by him; see Gen. 47: 31. 48: 2. 49: 33. 

Kai noocexvyysey .. .. avcov, and bowed himself upon the top 
of his staff. This last action did not accompany the blessing of 
the sons of Joseph ; at least it is not related in connexion with it, 
but as preceding it. See Gen. 47: 31, comp. 48: 1, 15, 16. I re- 
gard it, therefore, as a separate transaction, JToooexvvnoe (He- 
brew 1MmwW) designates, as it would seem, the act of worship or 
“reverence, paid to God, and occasioned by the grateful emotions of 
the dying patriarch, on account of the promise which his son Jo- 
seph had just made, to bury him with his fathers. That the He- 
brew arm}, and the corresponding Greek zoooexvrnoe, are some- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 21. 269 





times employed simply and merely to designate an act of religious 
worship, is plain from 2 K. 5: 18. Gen. 22:5. 1 Sam. 1:3. That 
m1nnwr7 generally means, worship or reverence by bowing down to- 
ward the earth, or even to the earth, is sufficiently plain; but that, 
in some cases, it also designates worship simply as a religious act, 
without necessarily implying a particular position of body, is suffi- 
ciently plain from 1 K. 1: 47, where it is said of David, in extreme 
old age, and confined to his bed, 2>Wanm—by Joan INNw2, he 
worshipped upon his bed ; a phrase constructed exactly like that in 
Gen. 47: 31; in both of which cases, Gesenius says, the act of wor- 
ship is signified without bowing down. This is indeed clear, from 
the nature of the position, and the infirmities of Jacob and David, 
If the reader wants evidence of a similar meaning of moooxvreém, 
he may consult John 4: 20--24. 12: 20. Acts 8: 27. 24; 11, ete. 
The only question of difficulty that remains, is, whether the 
present vowel-pointing of the Hebrew, mt7253 UNA Dy, upon the head 
of the bed, is probably more correct than the Septuagint mode of 
reading the Hebrew, viz. Swarm UNA by, upon the top of his staf. 
I have no hesitation in preferring the latter punctuation ; for what 
is MWAM WN, the head of a bed, in the oriental country, when the 
bed itself is nothing more than a piece of soft carpeting thrown 
down upon the floor?’ And what can be the meaning of Jacob’s 
bowing himself upon the head of the bed? For (1), there is no evi- 
dence, that Jacob was upon the bed, when Joseph paid him the 
visit recorded in Gen. 47: 28—31. It was after this, that Jacob 
was taken sick, Gen. 48: I, and sat up on his bed, when Joseph 
came to visit him, 48: 2. (2) An infirm person, lying upon a bed, 
if he assumed a position such as to bow himself, would sit on the 
middle of the bed, and not upon the head of it. (3) Ia all the 
Scriptures, the head of a bed is not once mentioned; and for a 
good reason, as the oriental bed had, strictly speaking, no head. 
For these reasons, I must regard Jacob as leaning upon the top of 
his staff for support, when he conversed with his son Joseph ; than 
which nothing can be more natural, for a person of his very ad- 
vanced years. In this position he was, when Joseph sware to him, 
that he would comply with the request which he had made in res- 
pect to his burial. This was so grateful to his feelings, that he 
spontaneously offered up his thanks to God for such a favour, q. d. 
he worshipped upon the top of his staff, i. e. leaning upon the top of 


270 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 21]—23. 





his staff, he offered homage or thanks to God ; just as David “ wor- 
shipped upon his bed,” i. e. did homage, or paid reverence to God, 
while on his bed, 1 K. 1: 47. 

That the present vowel-points of the Hebrew do not, in every 
case, give the most probable sense of the original, will not appear 
strange to any one, who reflects that they were introduced after the 
fifth century of our present era. All enlightened critics, of the 
present day, disclaim the idea that they are authoritative. 

The apostle says, that by faith Jacob worshipped. I understand 
this of that confidence in God which he entertained, and which led 
him to trust, that all which Joseph had promised him would be ac- 
complished. 

(22. More: mony ....évereiharo, by faith Joseph, at the close 
of life, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel [from 
Egypt], and gave commandment respecting his own bones. See Gen. 
50: 24—26. Josh. 24:32. Trdevroy, see on anodrvijoxwr in v. QI. 
*Everétloto, i. e. he commanded that his bones should be carried 
up, out of Egypt, to the land of Canaan, when the Israelites remov- 
ed thither. It was by faith in the promises of God, that Joseph 
spoke thus confidently respecting the future exodus of the Israel- 
ites, and gave directions respecting his bones, which could be exe- 
cuted only in case this exodus took place. 

23. Iiores Mwione....avrov, by faith Moses, after his birth, 
was concealed for three months by his parents. See Ex. 2:2. What 
is attributed by our author to the parents of Moses, is there said to 
have been done by his mother. But doubtless it was with her hus- 
band’s knowledge and concurrence; and even if it were not, there 
are many cases in Scripture, where what is done by one of any class 
or company of men, is attributed generally to the class or company ; 
e. g. one evangelist says that the thieves on the cross reviled Jesus ; 
but another informs us that one of them did this. ‘That zareveg ap- 
plies to both father and mother is well known, it being equivalent 
to our word parents. 

Avore eidov.... Baotheng, because they saw that he was a good- 
ly child, and did not fear the king’s commandment. °Asteiov, Heb. 
a0, goodly, fair, beautiful. Avarayno tov Paordews, viz. the 
command of Pharaoh, to destroy all the male children, Ex. 1: 16, 
22. It was faith or confidence in divine protection, which led them 
to perform such a hazardous duty. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 24—27. 271 





24. [Mores Movong.... Dagaw, by faith Moses, when arrived 
at mature age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 
Méyes YEVOMEVOS means, become full grown, become adult, having 
attained the stature of a man. °Hovnoaro, refused, etc.; no ex- 
press act of this kind is related in the sacred history; but the 
whole account of Moses’ conduct shews that he had, at this pe- 
riod, fully resolved upon leaving the court of Pharaoh, and embark- 
ing in the cause of the oppressed Israelites. 

25. Maddov éhouevos....anodavorv, choosing rather to suffer 
affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin 

for a season. Aum rov Mov, i.e. the Israelites, to whom. this 
name is often given. I] gdoxagov auagrias anodavowr, viz. the 
pleasures of living at the court of Pharaoh, in princely magnificence. 

26. Meilova nhovtov....Xovorov, counting reproach, like that 
which Christ suffered, as greater riches than all the treasures of E- 
gypt. That ovedcouov tov Xgcorov has the meaning here assign- 
ed to it, seems quite evident, if we consider, that the comparison 
between the reproach which Christ himself suffered, and the trea- 
sures of Egypt, would be inapposite here. The simple senti- 
ment is, ‘ Moses renounced pleasure and wealth, and endured 
suffering and reproach, because he believed in the promises which 
God had made of future good, and that he would deliver his people 
from the bondage of Egypt. So Christ, ‘* though rich, for our sakes 
became poor,” in order to redeem us from a bondage worse than 
that of Egypt. That Moses, then, counted reproach like that which 
Christ suffered, as preferable to the pleasure and wealth which he 
might have enjoyed at the Egyptian court, is plainly the meaning 
of the writer. Compare 2a0zjuara Xgorou, sufferings like those 
of Christ, in 2 Cor. 1: 5. Such a use of the genitive case is by no 
means unfrequent. 

‘ AnéBhene yao eg tiv wvoPanodociay, because he had respect 
to the retribution. “AnéBlexe means, to look away from present 
things, and to have respect to, or look forward to, future ones. The 
retribution of the invisible world is doubtless meant, here, by puco- 
Sanodooiav. Compare vs. 13—16, and v. 27. By faith in the 
proffered happiness of a future state, Moses was led to the acts of 
self denial here adverted to. 

27. ITItorse xarehiney .... Baoehiwes, by faith he left 
Egypt, not fearing the indignation of the king. It has been dis- 


972 COMMENTARY ON HEB, 11: 27—29. 





puted, whether it was the first or second time that Moses left Egypt, 
to which the writer here adverts. The first is related in Ex. 1, 
and was when he fled to Jethro in Midian. But as he fled, in this 
case, to save his life, which Pharaoh sought to destroy, Ex. 2: 14, 
15, this cannot be the leaving Egypt to which the apostle refers ; 
although Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and 
some of the modern critics, have understood it to be so. It must 
be the occurrences related in Ex. x—xtv., to which our author re- 
fers. Tov Ovuor tov Baotdews, see Ex. 10: 28, 29. 

Tov yao “dvatov wo domv éxagrtéonos, for he persevered, as 
one who sees him that is invisible. “Exuoréonos, perduravit, for- 
titer vel patienter duravit, if it relate to perseverance in a time of 
trial and suffering, as here. It does not of itself indicate endu- 
rance of suffering, but holding out, persevering, in any state or con- 
dition, keeping up good courage and fortitude perseveringly y or con- 
stantly. °Adgatov, i.e. him whom “no eye hath seen,” viz. the 
invisible God ; an appellation frequently given to the Deity; e. g. 
1 Tim. 1: 17. comp. Rom. 1: 20. Col. 1: 15, 16. In other words, 
a regard to that world, which is seen only by the eye of faith, led 
Moses to quit Egypt, in defiance of Pharaoh’s injunctions. 

28. ITiores menotnze .... avtov, by faith, he observed the pass- 
over, and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the 
first born might not touch them. Tlenoinxe to MeOH, Hebrew 
moO niiwy, which the Seventy translate moveiy 10 naoya. This 
means, (as we say), to keep or celebrate the passover. The Hebrew 
moe comes from mds, to pass.over, to pass by. The Greek form 
maoya comes from sh Aramaean Hebrew word, xn 1B, which was 
the Jewish method of pronouncing mo5 in later times, and to which 
the Greek word exactly corresponds. The account of the event to 
which the word maoye relates, may be seen in Ex. x1t.; for the et- 
ymology, see vs. 11, 13. ‘O oodvevwy ra mowroroxa, see Ex. 
12: 12. My Fiyn avrwy, Ex. 12: 133; avrwy, in the genitive, is 
governed by yy, as verbs of sense (touch) govern the genitive. 

All this was done by faith, i.e. because Moses fully believed, 
that what God had foretold would come to pass; in other words, 
“it was through confidence in the divine declarations. 

29. ITiores dueBnouv . ... Enoas, by faith, they passed through 
the Red Sea, as on dry land. The nominative to dveSnoar is oi 
‘Jooandirar, which the writer leaves his readers to supply from the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 29—31. 273 





tenor of the narration. Instances of the like kind are not unfre- 
quent, both in the writings of the Old Testament and of the New. 
See the history of the event, in Ex. x1v. 

“He nsiouy ... . xatenoOnoar, which the Egyptians assaying 
to do, were drowned. * Hg néeigay hoovtes is an expression of pe- 
culiar construction. “He meigav means the attempt of which, viz. 
of passing through the Red sea; so that 7¢ mstgav AaBovres is 
equivalent to, 7¢ dudPaow mevgacovtes, attempting the passage of 
which. Karenodnoav from xatanivw, to swallow up, to engulf, 
to overwhelm, and hence, to drown. See Ex. 14: 27, 28. 

It was on account of confidence in the promise of God, to bring 
the Israelites safely through the Red sea, that they ventured to 
cross an arm of it, looking to him for protection from its waters. 
It is not to be supposed, that every individual of the Israelites pos- 
sessed such a confidence as is here described; but their leaders 
had it, and (as in other cases of a similar nature) it is predicated 
of the nation. 

30. lore: te telyn .... juoas, by faith, the walls of Jericho 
fell down, after they had been compassed about, for seven days. 
See Josh. 6: 12—20. It was in consequence of the promise made 
by God to Joshua, that Jericho should be taken, after the Israelites 
had marched around it for seven days in succession, that these cir- 
cuits were performed. It was confidence, then, in the divine word, 
which led to the event in question. Avzidwd<evr«, Rosenmueller, 
Schleusner, Dindorf, and others, understand to have respect to czr- 
cumvallation, or a siege of the city by surrounding it; altogether 
contrary to the meaning of the narration in Joshua vi. For what 
can be the meaning of Josh. 6: 15, on the supposition that their in- 
terpretation is correct? Did the Israelites lay seven sieges to it, in 
one day? Most evident is it, that the sacred writer considers the 
whole event of the taking of Jericho as miraculous; and all at- 
tempts to explain it away by supposing a regular circumvallation, 
and that the city was stormed by the troops of Joshua, on the sev- 
enth day, are glosses forced upon the Scripture by the sceptical 
philosophy of interpreters ; not a simple explanation of the mean- 
ing of the sacred writers. 

31. Iiorse “Pau? .... etojvng, by faith, Rahab the harlot, 
having entertained the spies in a friendly manner, perished not with 
the unbelieving. Ov ovvanwhero, i.e. was preserved, the affirma- 

VOL. Il, 35 


274 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 61—38. 





tive idea being conveyed (as often elsewhere) by the use of a neg- 
ative form of expression _4mzeOyoaor refers to the inhabitants of 
Canaan, who treated the claims of the Israelites to that country 
with contumacy, and disbelieved what Jehovah had said respecting 
them. "Anevd7¢ is one who refuses to be persuaded, who is contu- 
macious. 'The event to which this clause relates, is narrated in 
Josh. 6: 22--25. } 

Askausevyn, having entertained, received, viz. into her house. 
Mev sionvng, with amity, in a peaceable manner ; like the Hebrew 
pibw, friendship, e.g. Ps. 41: 10. Jer. 20: 10. 38: 22. Obed. 7. 
Ps. 28: 3, comp. Est. 9: 30. 

It has been doubted whether mogvy, the appellation given to 
Rahab, here and in James 2: 25, means harlot, or hostess. For the 
latter, Schleusner contends, in his Lexicon ; as do also many com- 
mentators. The corresponding Hebrew word is #251, which they 
say comes from 413 pascere, alere, so that 4257 may well be explain- 
ed merely as one who furnishes others with nutriment, i.e. a hos- 
tess. But this derivation is contrary to the laws of etymology ; for 
251 must come from 33, to commit whoredom, and not from 437, 
to feed; so that the whole argument, on which this interpretation 
is built, falls to the ground. Besides, the wsus loquendi both of 
zit and mdgvy, is against such an interpretation. 

32. Kai ti ére heyw ; and what shall I say more? or, why 
should I recount examples any longer ? 

“Exdeiwer yoo we... . meoqytav, for*time would fail me, should 
T tell-of Gideon, and Barak, and Sampson, and Jephtha, of David 
and Samuel, and the prophets. The history of these, see in the 
books of Judges and Samuel. : 

33. Of dtu miorews . ... Baorretac, who, through faith, subdu- 
ed kingdoms. 'That is, confidence in divine promises respecting 
the deliverance of Israel, led them to war with and subdue the 
kingdoms of those, who oppressed the Hebrew nation. 

Eigyacavro dvxacoovvnv, Hebrew pay, NWS, OF, PY absp, prac- 
tised justice, did that which was equitable and proper, carried the 
laws of justice into execution, which latter seems to be the idea 
here. 

*“Enécvyor énayyshias, obtained promised blessings, i.e. as the 
reward of their confidence in God. ‘/ayyeAiag means here, as 
generally in this epistle, guod promissum est; and refers to the va- 


GOMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 33—35. Q75 





rious successes which, at different times, attended the obedient ef- 
forts and deeds of kings and prophets. 

"Egoutay otouera deovrwy, which probably refers to the his- 
tory of Sampson, Judg. 14: 5—9; of David, 1 Sam. 17: 34—--36; 
and of Daniel, Dan. 6: 16—24. 

34." HoSeouv dvvauty nugos, they quenched the violence of fire. 
See in Dan. 3: 19—26. 

"Egvyov orouara wayaious, they escaped the edge of the sword. 
Zromara wayatious, Hebrew ayn—2. The expression is frequent 
in Hebrew, and the equivalent one, ordua wayaioas, is several 
times used in the New Testament. The phrase is of a general 
nature, and is therefore applicable to many cases in the Old Tes- 
tament, where escape from imminent danger is related. 

"Evedvvapwnoay ano aoSeveias, were restored to vigour from 
a state of infirmity. °AoGéveve refers to the infirmity occasioned 
by sickness, or disease ; not to the weakness of one army compart- 
ed with another, or of one man compared with another. The case 
of Sampson, then, in Judg. 15: 15, 19. 16: 19 seq. to which Dr. 
Schulz refers us, seems not to be such as the writer had in view; 
but rather such cases as that of Hezekiah, 2 K. xx. 

"“Eyevn9noav isyvooi év aokéuw, became mighty in war. Ca- 
ses of this nature, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and 
Chronicles, supply in abundance. 

TlageuBohas éxhvvav akdioroiwy, overthrew the armies of for- 
eigners. Many cases of this nature are presented in the same 
books. ITaugsufosag means, camps, encampments ; hence, the per- 
sons who live in them, i.e. armies. *Addoroiwr, D734, pw, i.e. 
strangers to the Hebrews, and to the worship of the true God ; 
hence, foreigners, heathen. 

35. "EhaBov .... vexgovs avrav, women recovered their dead, 
by a resurrection. “EE avaotacswg designates restoration to life 
from a state of death, a renewed subsistence or existence, a resurrec- 
tion; which corresponds with facts, as related in Scripture; e. g. 
2K. 4: 18-37. 1 K. 17: 17--24. Tove vexgovs atdray, viz, their 
dead children; which is implied by evrav. 

"Abhow 08 Etunnaviodnour, some were tortured and beaten. 
Tuunavifo, to tympanize, means to stretch upon an instrument 
called r¥umavoy, (the shape of which is not certainly known, at 
present), for the sake of giving the body an-attitude of peculiar ex- 


276 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 35—37. 





posure to the power of cudgels or rods. It involves the idea of 
scourging or beating in this peculiar way ; i.e. torture by stretch- 
ing upon the ruyunuvrory, and beating, were conjoined at the same 
time. 

Ov ngoodekauevos .... TUymor, not accepting liberation, in 
order that they might obtain a better resurrection. That is, they 
declined accepting liberation from their torments, on condition of 
renouncing their religion. They looked to a resurrection of the 
body, which was of a higher nature than merely the redeeming 
it, for a while, from temporal death; and in view of this, they re- 
fused to accept of liberation from their torments, on the condition 
prescribed. ‘They persevered, because their faith enabled them to 
regard as a certainty, the future and glorious resurrection of the 
just. 

Koetrrovos avactacens, better resurrection. Better than what? 
Plainly, better than that which had just been mentioned, viz. res- 
urrection to life in the present world merely; as in the examples 
of the children, mentioned in 1 K. xvi. and 2 K.iv. It was not 
the hope of such a resurrection——the hope of merely regaining the 
present life, and being again subject to death, as before—which 
led the martyrs, suffering upon the rynevor, to refuse liberation. 
It was the hope of resurrection to a life of immortal happiness and 
glory, that led them to refuse liberation. 

36.” Freoor 02 .. ... EhaBov, others were tried by moekings and 
scourges, lit. others were put to the trial of mockings and scourges. 
*Lunary wo refers to scorn, derision, and buffeting, which the 
victims of persecution experienced. Maor/ywy designates a meth- 
od of scourging, different from that practised by the use of the 
tuunavov, See 2 Macc. 7: 1. 2 K. 2: 23; 1 K. 22: 24. 

"Eve 02 dsouay xai-guianns, and also by bonds and imprison- 
ment. See 1 K. 22: 27. Jer. xx. 

37. “EkOacdnoar .... anéPavov, they were stoned, they were 
sawn asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the murderous 
sword. ‘The instances, mentioned in this verse, of suffering and 
death, are not distinctly recorded in the Old Testament ; but were 
doubtless all of them realities, and often repeated, under the terri- 
ble persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, and perhaps of Manasseh, 
and others. The Jews have had a tradition, from time immemorial, 
that Isaiah was sawn asunder by the command of Manasseh. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 37, 38. oT7 








The word éxzcgao0noay has been a stumbling block to the 
great body of critics, both in ancient and modern times. The dif- 
ficulty lies in the fact, that a word of a mere generic signification, 
and of a milder aspect, should be inserted in the midst of those, 
which designate specific sufferings, and those of a high degree. 
Accordingly, it has been proposed to read, éxvgaodnouy, éxnow- 
Onouv, ExonoOnour, énagdnour, énvoewdnoar, énoad nour, éone- 
eacdnoay, ZoGapiodnoay, ExnosaoOnouy, EragryevOnouy, or én- 
ecoa0noav ; allof which are without any authority, while éxecoaody- 
oay is well supported. In such a case, conjecture, moreover, is out 
of question, so long as the established reading will make any tolera- 
ble sense. In respect to the contested word, énevoanodnoar, it 
seems to me that the great body of critics have overlooked a very 
obvious and intensive meaning of it, viz. that of temptation to do 
evil; which in the case presented by v. 37 here, must mean, ‘ temp- 
tations presented by persecutors to the victims of their torture, in 
order to induce them to forsake their religion, and worship the 
gods of idolaters.’, Such was a common practice among the heath- 
en persecutors of Christians. Not only life, but wealth and hon- 
our were frequently proffered, in the midst of torture most agoniz- 
ing to the human frame, in order to tempt the martyrs to forsake 
their religion. Such a temptation as this, is by no means to be 
reckoned, under such circumstances, among the lighter trials of 
good men; and to such an one, it is plain our text may refer. Is 
it not probable, that it has such a reference? Compare the latter 
part of v.35. If so, this locus vexatissimus may be permitted to 
rest in quiet, not only as being supported by good authority, but as 
altogether significant, and entirely consonant with the writer’s pur- 
pose. 

TlegiqAgov év... . xaxovzovmevor, they went about in sheep- 
skins and goat skins, suffering want, afflicted, injuriously treated. 
That is, driven out from the society of men, they were obliged to 
clothe themselves with the skins of animals; to undergo all the 
wants and distresses to which such a condition reduced them; and 
to submit to the injuries, which were heaped upon them by their 
persecutors. 

38. “Ry ove jv aktos oO x06m08, of whom the world was not wor- 
thy, i. e. with whom the world could not bear a comparison in re- 
spect to worth ; in other words, ‘who were of a character elevated 


278 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 38—40. 





far above that of the rest of the world.’ This is a proverbial ex- 
pression, and plainly is to be included here in a parenthesis, as it 
is an ejaculation of the writer, interrupting the regular series of the 
discourse. 

"Ev eonutarg .. . . yng, wandering around in deserts and moun- 
tains, in caves also and dens of the earth. A further description of 
persons banished from society, and wandering hither and thither, in 
order to find the means of subsistence, or to avoid the rage of per- 
secution. Ss7Aatoeg and omaig include fissures of the rocks, and 
holes in the earth; both of which were resorted to by these out- 
casts, for a shelter, when one was needed. 

39. Kai ovroe navteg... . Enayyehiay, all these, moreover, who 
are commended on account of faith, obtained not the promised bless- 
ing. That is, they lived in expectation of some future good, of 
some promised blessing.. They habitually, by faith, looked forward 
to something which they did not attain, in the present life. Mag- 
tvonvevtes, commended ; as often before, in this epistle. 

40. Tov Geov meoi.... relecewwor, God having provided 
some better thing for us, so that without us they could not fully ob- 
tain what was needed. An exceedingly difficult verse, about the 
meaning of which there have been a multitude of conjectures. 
‘The only ones that deserve particular regard are, that the xoetrrov 
zu refers to the Messiah; or, that it refers to the happiness of the 
heavenly world. In the latter sense, some very respectable inter- 
preters take it. But how is heavenly biéssedness vouchsafed to ‘la- 
ter more than to ancient saints? And in what sense can it be af- 
firmed, that the ancients ‘could not, or did not, attain it without us ? 
The object of the writer, through the chapter, has been to shew 
that the hopes of heaven, cherished by the ancient worthies, were 
firm and bright, through faith in the word of God. That they did, 
at last, actually attain the object of their hopes, surely will not be 
doubted. The “ better thing reserved for Christians,’’ then, is not 
a reward in heaven; for such a reward was proffered also to the 
ancient saints. 

I must therefore adopt another exegesis of the whole passage ; 
“which refers énayysdiay to the promised blessing of the Messiah. 
See Gen. 12: 1--3. 17: 1—8. \ I construe the whole passage, then, 
in this manner. ‘The ancient worthies persevered in their faith, 
although the Messiah was known to them only by promise. We 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 40—12: 1. 279 


are under greater obligations than they to persevere ; for God has 
fulfilled his promise respecting the Messiah, and thus placed us in 
a condition better adapted to perseverance than theirs. So much 
is our condition preferable to theirs, that we may even say, With- 
out the blessing which we enjoy, their happiness could not be com- 
pleted.’ In other words, The coming of the Messiah was essential 
to the consummation of their happiness in glory, 1.e. was necessary 
to their tedeiwoce. 

In 9: 15, (comp. 9: 26 and Rom. 3: 25, 26), the death of Christ 
is represented as having a retrospective influence upon past ages. 
The happiness, then, of the ancient worthies, is connected with 
Christ’s coming and atonement. And to these the writer seems 
to me to advert, when he says uy ywols 7uav tedsemOaoe, i.e. 
without what has taken place in our days, their happiness could 
not be perfected, great and good as they were. If this be not his 
meaning, I am unable to discover it. And this meaning is alto- 
gether apposite to his purpose ; for, as he had shewn that faith was 
the means, to the ancient worthies, of perseverance and of obtain- 
ing future-happiness, even before the coming of the Messiah, he 
might well argue, that since his coming, there were more powerful 
motives to persevere in the faith which he had been commending. 
If the ancients did so, whose happiness was connected with some- 
thing then future, and which was to happen only in later days, 
then surely Christians ought now to persevere, who have actually 
witnessed the performance of promised good, for which the ancients 
only hoped. The xysirroy re, then, seems to be, ‘the actual ful- 
filment of the promise respecting the Messiah ;’ in respect to which, 
later times certainly have a pre-eminence over the early ones; and 


on which, the expected happiness of early times was really depen- 
dent. 





CHAP. XII. 


1. Toryaoovy nai... . ueorvomy, since now we are encompas- 
sed by so great a multitude of witnesses ; i.e. by so great a multi- 
tude of spectators. An allusion, as the sequel shews, is here made 
to the stadium of the Greeks and Romans, where the persons stood, 
who were to engage in the exercises of their public games, sur- 


280 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 1. 


rounded by great multitudes of spectators. In a condition resem- 
bling this, the writer now places the Hebrew Christians whom he is 
addressing, and surrounds them with the multitude of worthies 
and martyrs, to whom he had been alluding, in the preceding chap- 
ters. Vegos is figuratively used for multitude. So the heathen 
writers also; e.g. Herod. VIII. 109, végoo rocovro avdownwv. 
Eurip. Phoeniss. 1321, véqo¢ moheutwv. Hee. 907, rovovde “EXAy- 
vev vépos, where the Scholiast explains végog by mAndoc. Aris- 
toph. Avib. ozgoudiay végos. Hom. In. wy. 138, veégos aefwv. 
Diod. Sic. II. 28, vegedn [i. q. véeqos] axpidwr. 

The writer proceeds to exhort the combatants to prepare for 
the contest before them. “Oyxoy anoSéuevor aavta, laying aside 
every incumbrance. “Oyxog means swelling, tumour, pride; also, 
weight, weightiness. 'The reference here is, to those who ran in 
stadium, and who laid aside all superfluous clothing, and disincum- 
bered themselves of every thing which could impede their progress. 
The simple word, weight, would not be of sufficient latitude to con- 
vey all which dyxog means, in the passage before us. Every im- 
pediment or hindrance is to be laid aside, or, every incumbrance is 
to be avoided. 

Kai rnv svnegisraroy euaotiay, especially the sin which easily 
besets us. Kai I understand here, as a particle of connexion be- 
fore the phrase tv evmeoioratoy auaotiay, and that it signifies 
even, truly, and is adequate, in such a connexion, to the English 
word specially, or, in particular. HEustolsraroy is a anak Aeyou- 
évov, the meaning of which has been variously explained. It is, 
in its composition, analogical with evnegiyoagos, evxsginatos, 
EUIEQLYUTOS, etc. Tlzguiornue means, to stand round, surround. 
Hence Chrysostom explains evmegioratoy by 7 evxdhws meotiora- 
pévn nuas, which easily comes or stands around us, So, many 
modern interpreters understand the word; which, on the whole, 
seems to me most apposite. The ¢éuaytia which most easily beset 
the Hebrews, was undoubtedly apostasy, or defection from their 
Christian profession; against which the whole epistle is directed. 
They were under peculiar temptations to this sin, in consequence 
‘of the persecutions which they endured, and their former prejudi- 
ces in favour of Judaism. 

But other critics, ancient and modern, explain evmegloratov in 
a somewhat different manner. JIéoioraovc, among other things, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 1, 2. 281 





denotes, as Hesychius affirms, iiwes, aveyun, ucouuve. Hence 
Theodoret explains evmegioraror, by dv’ nv suxohwe reg sig mEov0- 
racers éunincet, by which any one easily falls into troubles or afflic- 
tions. That is, ‘ Lay aside the sin, which will easily bring you in- 
to a state of punishment or distress.” So some of the modern crit- 
ics, also, explain the word ; especially as the Greek onegiotator 
means, not dangerous, free from vexation. Hence, they conclude, 
éUméo(oTaTOY Must mean the opposite of this, viz. full of danger or 
trouble; sv being intensive, as in evueyeOns, eyunung, etc. This 
is a very good sense, and well supported by analogy. It may there- 
fore be safely admitted. 

Others, Ernesti, Doederlein, et al. prefer to render evmeo/otaros 
by quod patronos habet, quod homines favent ; i. e. evneatotaror is, 
with them, well surrounded, viz. by applauding multitudes. But the 
preceding sense is better supported than this, by analogy. 

Ae vnoperns.... ayave, let us run with perseverance the race 
set before us. “Yrouevng refers, here, not so much to enduring 
patiently evils which might befal them, as to holding out in the 
race, persevering in their efforts, until it was completed, and the 
reward secured. °4ywy means, any kind of contest, any gymnas- 
tic exercise which was a trial of skill, or in which there was a com- 
petition. Here, plainly, it is limited to designate a race, by the 
accompanying rorywusyv. ITooxesoe is employed, by the classi- 
cal writers, in the same way as here, viz. to designate the proposal 
of this or that aywy to the aywrioca. 

The simple meaning of the whole verse, divested of metaphor, 
is, ‘ Since so many illustrious patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs, who 
preceded us, have exercised faith, persevered in it, and obtained 
the rewards consequent upon it, let us, in like manner, rejecting 
every solicitation to renounce our hopes and our holy religion, 
persevere in the belief and in the duties which the gospel requires.’ 

2. That they may be excited to do this, he now refers them to 
the example of Christ himself. “Agagwvres ef¢ tov.... Jyoour, 
looking to Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith. "Aoynyov, 
author, leader ; here it means, ‘ Jesus, who introduced the new re- 
ligion or the Christian faith, who first taught it, who led the way 
in it.” See on 2:10. Tedecwrny, he who completed the system of 
faith or religion, which he had introduced. So it is commonly ex- 
plained. It may be asked, however, whether the meaning of re- 

VOL. II. 36 


282 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 2, 5. 





aeeinie be not substantially the same lath succunee 5: 9, relevo- 
cae 2: 10, rerehsvouevoy 7: 28, comp. v. 26 of the same. If 
construed according to this analogy, the meaning of the phrase 
would be, ‘ Let us look, for an example, to Jesus the author of our 
religion, now advanced to a state of glory.’ There is an objection, 
however to this, arising from the clause in the last part of the verse, 
which seems to present the same idea. It is hardly probable, that 
the writer has fallen into tautology. 

That nioreg often signifies, the Christian faith or religion, 
hardly needs to be mentioned. 

“Os avri rg... . yaous, who, on account of the joy that was set» 
before him. This yaou aooxeemevn, was exaltation to the right 
hand of God in the world above, and the glorious reign which was 
to follow ; as the last part of the verse shews. The joy that was 
set before him, was given to him when he had finished his course. 

“Trréuseve oravgov ... : nexcOnue, endured the cross, disregard- 
ing ignominy, and has sat down at the right hand. of the throne of 
God. °Ev dsku@ ré x. t. 2, see on 1:3. _Aioyvvy means, the shame 
which others might heap upon him, i. e. zgnominy, tisliason or, the 
ignominious punishment of the cross. 

Sentiment ; ‘ Do as Christ the author of our it religion did. 
For the heavenly reward proposed, he, with patience and persever- 
ance, endured every kind of indignity and suffering, and has, in 
consequence of it, received a glorious reward. Follow in his steps, 








and participate in his glory.’ 

_ 3. “Avadoyloaots .... avtidoyiay, consider, now, him who en- 
dured such opposition against himself from sinners. * Avahoyicas- 
Oe means, reflect on his example, take his case into consideration. 
“Auaotwioyr refers here, to the persecuting Jews of the Saviour’s 
time, who thus evil entreated Jesus. “AyrAoyiay, 397, 737972, 
opposition, rebellion, contest against, contumely. Contradiction is 
a term too soft to reach the full meaning. 

“Iva. wn xounte.... éxAvouevor, lest, becoming discouraged in 
your minds, ye grow weary. °Exdbouar means, to become discourag- 
ed or despondent. I join the participle éxAvomevoe with rai wuzuis. 
So Wahl, on éxAvoues. The verb éxivw has the same significa- 
tion, if the noun be omitted ; e. g. v. 5 

Keuyo means, to become wearied, to be tired out. The first 
step toward forsaking the Christian course, is, to become disheart- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 3—5. 283 


ened in the pursuit of it. Next, follows weariness in pursuing that, 
from which we do not hope or expect any certain good. This 
leads, of course, to an abandonment of the pursuit. 

4. Ovnw weyots... avtayovelouevar, ye have not yet resisted un- 
to blood, in your contest against sin. The phrase, ye have not yet re- 
sisted unto blood, is not to be understood as representing the Hebrew 
Christians as making, or preparing to make, active and hostile resis- 
tance to their aggressors or persecutors. ‘This is not the meaning of 
the writer. It was figuratively a contest, in which the Hebrews were 
engaged ; just as in vs. I—3, he had represented it as a race, ayo. 
It was a contest with trial, temptation, affliction ; the result of be- 
ing persecuted by the enemies of the Christian religion. But the 
struggle had not yet proceeded so far, that they were called to mar- 
tyrdom, as others in ancient times had been. Many vexations had 
been suffered by them; but the shedding of their blood had not 
yet commenced. 

This could hardly be said in respect to the churches at Jerusa- 
lem, without limitation, where James and Stephen had actually suf- 
fered martyrdom, and others had been severely treated. Still, it 
might be said of the generation of Christians then living there. 

ITo0g tyv euaoriay, a controverted phrase. I understand it, 
(simply in accordance with the nature of the context), as an ab- 
stract noun put for a concrete, i.e. amagria for auagrmovs; an 
usus loquendi very common in both the Old and New Testaments. 
“Awaotiay, if explained thus, means, persecutors, viz. those who 
inflicted injuries upon the Hebrew Christians ; and probably these 
were their own countrymen or nation, i. e. the Jews. 

5. Kai éxdehnode .... Ovodeyerar, and have ye forgotten the 
exhortation which is addressed to you, as to children? Most inter- 
preters render xai éxieAnode without interrogation, and ye have 

forgotten, ye must needs have forgotten, etc. It seems to me more 
congruous with the apostle’s manner of address, in this hortatory 
part of his epistle, to render it, (as Ernesti has done), interroga- 
tively. It loses nothing of its force, and gains in respect to the 
manner of address. 

Yié wou .... éheyyousvos, my son, do not slight the chastening 
of the Lord, nor be disheartened when reproved by him. "Ohiyoiost, 
Hebrew onan, contemn, slight, despise, disregard. TToieiag, in 
the sense of the Hebrew 3077, chastening, rebuke. Classic usage 


4) 


284 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 5—8.. 


employs macdeia in the sense of instruction, discipline. °Exiuou, 
Hebrew ypn from yap, fastidire, also metuere, i. e. un éxdvau, be 
not timid, be not disheartened, viz: as to going forward in your 
Christian course ; forsake it not, because you experience trouble in 
pursuing it. The quotation is from Prov. 3: 11, 12, and in the 
words of the Septuagint. 

6. “Ov yoo ayang .... ng00de zeta, for whom the Lord loveth, 
he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Maoti- 
yo. 6é #. 1.4. is after the words of the Septuagint, Prov. 3: 12. 
The Hebrew, as now read, gives a somewhat different meaning. 
It is thus, HEI) J2q~MN NDA, and as a father [chastens] the son 
whom he loves. The Seventy : appear to have read 333, participle 
of aN, or else 28> in Piel. But no example of a transitive sense 
of 3x2, in Kal, is to be found ; it means only, to be afflicted, to feel 
pain. Of the Piel form of this verb, no instance is found in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. Still, the Seventy BAY have read 3N35, and 
pain, viz. 3p" shall overtake the son, etc. ; which gives the same 
sense (for pe a aS MaOTLyYOL VIOP. ts whatever way they 
read the Hebrew, in order to make their version, as the version 
now is, and as the apostle has quoted it, it preserves the spirit, 
though not the /etter, of the original Hebrew. ‘That . quotations 
are often made by the New Testament writers from the Old Tes- 
tament, in a general way, ad sensum and not ad literam, I have had 
frequent occasion to remark before, in commenting on our epistle. 
No one, who attentively siudies the New Testament, can doubt 
this. 


7. Et nmasiav.... 6 Be60, af ye endure chastisement, God 





. dealeth with you as children. “Ynouevere has the sense here of 


enduring, undergoing, suffering ; and not that of supporting, bear- 
ing up under, persevering. Ilooogégerae (mid. voice) means trac- 
tare aliquem. So the classical writers also employ it. See Schnei- 
der and Schleusner on the word. 

Tis yao gore .... marno; for what son is there, whom his fa- 
ther does not chasten? ‘That is, How can ye expect, although ye 
are children, not to receive any chastisement ? 

8. Li dé ywols gore... . viol, but if ye are without chastise- 
ment, (of which all chide en are made partakers), then are ye spuri- 
ous and not [legitimate] children. Nodoe means, illegitimate 
children. Yiot, which is here the antithesis, of course means, 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 8S—10. 285 





legitimate offspring. ‘The meaning is, ‘ If ye are not dealt with as 
all legitimate children are, it would follow, that ye are considered 
as not belonging to them.’ That is, if ye receive no chastening, 
then God does not acknowledge you as his spiritual children. 

The design of the writer, in thus applying this text of Scrip- 
ture, is plain. He means to tell the Hebrews, that so far from be- 
ing disheartened by their trials and afflictions, on account of their 
Christian profession, they ought to regard it as matter of encour- 
agement, and as an evidence, that God is acknowledging by these 
their filial relation to him. 

9. Eira cous wév .... évetoenduedear, furthermore, we have had 
fathers of our flesh, who have chastised us, and we have yielded 
them reverence. Tyo ouyx0s juov naréoas, fathers of our flesh, i. e. 
of our natural bodies. The idea is, ‘the fathers of our physical 
nature, in distinction from our spiritual one.’ 

Ou nokia wadhov....tnoousy; shall we not much rather yield 
subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, that wemay live? That is, 
when God chastens us, for our good, in order that he may promote 
our final happiness, when he has so important an end in view; 
shall we not bow to his will, with cheerful subjection? TTaroi ray 
avevpatoy, an antithesis of 77g oagxos ajumv matéoas, and there- 
fore, plainly, yu@y is implied after mvevuatwy. Num. 16: 22, 
mips bob nimann wbx, the God of the spirits of all flesh, isa 
parallel expression. Zijoouev has the sense here, as often. else- 
where, of being happy; like the Latin vivere, in dum vivimus viv- 
amus. 

10. Oi pév yao... . énaidevor, they, indeed, chastened us for 
a little while, according to their own pleasure. TIpo¢ odtyas 7ue- 
gas, i. e. during our childhood, our minority ; which seems to me 
a much more natural sense, than to say with Heinrichs and Din- 
dorf, “‘ the fruit of their chastisement was only temporary.” Kara 
10 doxouv aurots, according to their own pleasure, intimates that 
they sometimes erred in their chastisement, or that it was some- 
times arbitrary ; but it is not so, with that which God inflicts. 

“O 08 éni r0 Ouupegoy ... . autov, but he, for our good, in or- 
der that we might be made partakers of his holiness. That is, God 
never chastises arbitrarily, but always to promote the real good of 
his children, to make them more holy, and so more like himself. 
Comp. 2 Pet. 1: 4. Lev. 11: 44. 19: 2. 20: 7, 26. 


286 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 11—13. 


11. Taou 02 madela.... Aunns, now all chastisement, for the 
present, seemeth not to be matter of joy but of grief. TIo0¢ weév v0 
naoov, during the present, i.e. while it continues. Mey here cor- 
responds to d¢ after voregoy in the next clause, i.e. there is prota- 
sis and apodosis. . 

"Yoregov 02... . Otxacoovvns, but afterwards, it yields the hap- 
py fruit of righteousness, to those who are exercised thereby. Kao- 
mov éionvexov is a peculiar expression. Some resemblance to it 
may be found in James 3: 18. Is. 32: 17. Gen. 37: 4. The mean- 
ing of s¢onvtxov is to be gathered, by a comparison of it with the 
Hebrew 052, which means, good, happiness, welfare. Eionvixos, 
then, is that which bestows happiness, or produces it. This corres- 
ponds with the writer’s design ; who means to say, that afflictions 
rightly improved, will be productive of fruzt that will confer happi- 
ness, such fruit as righteousness always produces. So remote a 
position of dvzacocuyns from zaonov, seems almost to indicate the 
necessity of repeating this word before it. 

12. Avo rae TUOELMEVAS Nia avoodwoare, wherefore strength- 
en the weak hands, and the feeble knees. °Avogdwoure is often em- 
ployed by the Seventy, in order to translate the Hebrew 44>, which 
means to establish, to make firm, to strengthen. Tugewuévas (from 
naginuc) means, relaxed, let down, consequently, weak, enfcebled. 
One might, (as many interpreters have done), translate evog?w- 
Care navemévas ysioas, by lift up ethe hands that. hang dewn. 
_ But since the same verb applies to magadehuucva yovara, it is bet- 
ter so to render it, as-to make the application to both congruous ; 
which may be done without transgressing Hellenistic usage. The 
quotation is from Is. 35: 3, where the Septuagint has ¢oyvoare in- 
stead of avooPwoace. 

The meaning of the verse is, ‘Since all your afflictions are dis- 
pensed by fatherly kindness, be of good courage, do not indulge 
any despondency, but persevere in the course which you have be- 
gun.’ 

13. Kai reozeas i alg . tuo, and make plain the paths for 
your feet. In Hebrew, 5539 daz ze, make even or level the 
path of thy feet ; Septuagint oobag rouyeas molee Gog moot, Prov. 
3: 26. Ifthe apostle has quoted here, it is ad sensum, not ad ver- 
bum. The meaning is, ‘ Remove all obstacles, or, disregard all 
obstagles, to your progress in the Christian course.’ 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 13, 14. 287 





“Iva un 10 ywhdv....maddov, that what is lame may not be 
sprained, but rather be healed. To ywdov is a neuter adjective, us- 
ed for the abstract noun, lameness, and therefore of a generic signi- 
fication, designating that which ts lame, or the members which are 
lamed. °Hatoann means, to turn aside; which applied to the 
lame, is to dislocate, distort, sprain, wrench, the limbs which are 
lamed. 

"/a0n 02 paddor, i.e. it is better to make the paths smooth and 
plain, so that those who are lamed may walk with ease and safety, 
than to let them be rough and uneven, so as to endanger an in- 
crease of their malady. 

The whole is a figurative expression, used by our author to 
convey the idea, that to go straight forward in their Christian 
course, regardless of any afflictions to which this may subject them, 
is the only way of safety, for those who are in danger of halting. 


The writer now leaves the subject, on which he had insisted so long and with such earn- 
estness, and proceeds to remind the Hebrews of various duties to which their Christian profes- 
sion, and the times in which they lived, rendered it necessary that they should pay a particular 
regard. 


14. Eionvyy dvoxete.... ayraonuor, studiously cultivate peace 
with all men, and holiness. Eionvny means here, a state of con- 
cord and amity, the opposite of contention and broils. To conten- 
tions the Hebrew Christians must have been much exposed, at this 
time, in consequence of the frequent injuries inflicted upon them 
by their persecutors. . Avoxere, pursue with zeal or engagedness. 
‘Aytaowor, holiness, i. e. a pious upright life, or, a life of consecra- 
tion to God. 

Ob yuwois.... xvovov, without which no one shall see the Lord. 
"Onteodas tov xvovor, to see the Lord, denotes, to come before him, 
to enjoy his presence, to be admitted to his favour. Comp. Matt. 5: 
8, and Wahl on omrouce, 2. b. See also 1 Thess. 4: 17. 2 Cor. 
5: 8. Phil. 1: 23. John 14: 3, 4. 17: 24. 


288 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 15. 


15. “Encoxonovvtes un Tug... . Sou, see to it, that no one fail 
of the favour of God. °Envozonovrres lit. seeing; but the sense 
is the same, and the translation more perspicuous, if a new sen- 
tence be made here by adopting, as I have done, the imperative 
form of the verb to see. Mn 70g, i. e. uj tug 7, the verb of exis- 
tence being implied. ‘Yoregmy is differently rendered, by differ- 
ent interpreters. ‘Yorsegéw means, to come late, to arrive after the 
proper or favourable time, and is so rendered here by some. But 
vorsoay ano... is hardly capable of such a meaning, and plainly 
should be rendered, be wanting in respect to, fail of, come short of, 
lack. But what is yaouros ? Some answer, the Christian religion ; 
and construe the whole phrase thus, ‘Guard well against the apos- 
tasy of any one from Christianity.’ But this warning has been so 
often repeated, and in terms so awful; and specially, as the writer 
appears, in v. 14, to make a transition from his great subject, to 
the consideration of other things of particular importance to the 
Hebrew Christians; it may well be doubted whether yaovros has 
the sense thus put upon it. The writer had just said, that holiness 
was indispensable to that happiness which God bestows.’ I under- 
stand him as now saying, ‘See well to it, that no one fail of obtain- 
ing that divine favour, which is the result of holiness ;’ and so con- 
nect it, as a hortatory adjunct, with the preceding sentiment. 

My ws 6ifa.... évoyhn; lest any root of bitterness springing 
up trouble you, i.e. see to it, lest.any person of vicious life and ex- 
ample should rise up among you. Many commentators refer’ this 
to apostates. ‘They are the more inclined to this, because a simi- 
_ Jar expression is found’in Deut. 29: 17, which there characterises 
those, who turn from the worship of the true God to that of idols. 
But, as it is far from being certain that our author designs to make 
a direct quotation in the present case, I should not consider this 
reason, as in itself, of any considerable weight.. Even if the form 
of expression be quoted, the application of it must depend, of course, 
upon the context. This respects not apostasy in particular, (as we 
have already seen), but other sins to which the Hebrews might be 
particularly exposed. No doubt the expression 6/a mxolag comes 
from the Hebrew, 2252 WN AAS WW Opa V2 7p, lest there be 
among you any root springing up, [which is] poison and wormwood, 
Deut. 29: 17. The expression there used to describe an idolater, 
viz: root of poison and wormwood, is here applied to any person of 
an unholy life and deleterious example, who is called @6i¢e mexoiac. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12:16. 289 





The consequence is next described. Kal dva ravrys wravdo- 
ov m0Adol, and by this many be polluted. That is, the bad example 
of some, will have a pernicious, polluting influence on many. 
Guard well against it ; for énvoxonovrzes is implied before wy rg 
Oita xz. A. 

My tg mOQVOS .... avrou, let there be no fornicator nor pro- 
Sane person, like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth- 
right. Ildgvog is explained as meaning apostate, one making de- 
Section from the true religion to a false one, by those who construe 
the whole of our context as relating only to apostasy. God often 
taxes his ancient people with adultery and fornication, in conse- 
quence of their having turned to the worship of idols. ‘The mean- 
ing thus given to mogveg may, no doubt, be philologically support- 
ed ; i. e. the word is capable of such an explanation. But as I in- 
terpret the context in a different way, it appears to be more con- 
sonant with it, to take mo@vog as designating, any person who in- 
dulges in gross and sensual pleasures, or, who is of an abandoned 
character. So our Saviour often speaks of the Jews as a wicked 
and adulterous generation; not literally adulterous, (although 
doubtless this was true of some), but adulterous in the figurative 
sense of the word, viz. sensual, vicious, abandoned, profligate. 

BéBniog is one, who scoffs at religion or sacred things, who dis- 
regards what is sacred in the view of heaven. The appellations 
mogvos and ¢8ylog may both be applied to Esau here, and pro- 
bably are so. As to the application of mogvog, see Gen. 26: 34, 
35 and Gen. 36: 2. In regard to G¢eydog, see Gen. 25: 29—34. 
His birthright was not, indeed, a thing of religion; but it was, in 
those days, a matter of great personal importance and advantage. 
The argument is from analogy. ‘Let no one give up himself to 
the gratification of his lusts, as did Esau, to the great grief of his 
father, Gen. 26: 35; let no one despise the distinguished privileges 
which Christianity confers upon him, like Esau who despised the 
privileges of his birthright, and parted with them for a mere morsel 
of food.’ In the case of Esau, folly and unbelief were very con- 
spicuous ; for the land of Canaan, as he well knew, had been prom- 
ised to his ancestors for a possession ; and as the first born son, he 
must, according to the custom of those days, have a peculiar title 
to it. So those who reject the proffer of the heavenly inheritance, 

VOL. II, 37 


Sin, 
% 7 


290 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 16—18. 





and renounce their duty-ad’Ghvietiane, may, with more propriety 
still, be called Bé@nhow. 

17. Those, who conduct i such a manner, will hereafter weep 
with bitter lamentations, when it is beyond their power to recover 
what has been lost. Thus was it with Esau. "/ore yoo. ... ome- 
doxacdy, for ye know, that when he was afterwards desirous to 
obtain the blessing, it was refused. See Gen. 27: 34—40. Evioyi- 
av, viz. the blessing of his father Isaac. 

Meravoias yao .... avtyjv, yea, he found no place for a change 
of mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. See 
Gen. 27: 35, 38, 40. Meravoiag here refers to a change of mind in 
Isaac, who had given the blessing (appropriate to primogeniture) 
to Jacob. The writer evidently does not mean to say, that Esau 
found no place for repentance in himself. _4urny, sc. petavovar. 

The sentiment of the whole is, ‘Guard well against indulging 
any fleshly appetites ; above all, against slighting the blessings and 
privileges which Christianity proffers ; lest, having done this, you 
come at last, when it is forever too late, bitterly to mourn over your 
folly and wickedness.’ 





Such watchfulness the Hebrews had the more reason to observe, since under the new 
dispensation every thing was of a milder aspect, and of a more inviting, encouraging nature, 
than under the old. The comparison between the two dispensations is continued through vs. 
18—24, -The writer begins with describing the nature of the ancient one. The whole passage 
has reepect to Ex. XX. XXI. etc. and Deut. IV. V. 


18. Ov yoo moooeAnlvGute . . . Ooet, moreover, ye are not come to 
the mount which could be touched. He means mount Sinai, which 
was an object palpable to the senses. Yylagamevw, contrectabile, 
quod tangendum sit, i. q. atoOnrov, quicquid sensu percipitur. So 
. Tacitus, Ann. IIT. 12, oculis contrectare ; and Cicero, Tusc. III. 15, 
mente contrectare. ‘The idea of de coelo tactus, thunder-struck, is 
here assigned by some respectable expositors to wylagauerm ; but 
without any good philological support. The Greeks use @/yeey and 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 18, 19. 291 





Suyyavevy to denote, the striking of thunder. The Hebrews em- 
ploy »32, which the Seventy translate by aateoGae. But ynlaqaw 
answers to the Hebrew wWyj; and waz. Particularly in Talmudic 
and Rabbinic Hebrew, is NYw72 and wW7372 used to designate, quod 
contrectabile est, quidquid sensu ‘cognoscitur. But, philology apart, 
the object of the writer in the antithesis between Sinai and Sion, 
plainly shews, that he means to designate the former as corporeal, 
matertal; the latter as spiritual, invisible, the object of faith, but 
not of the senses. Chrysostom has well drawn the comparison, 
when he says of Sinai, navra roré avoOyto, nai Owels, Kal Pwval ; 
of Sion, navra vonra xai aooata vuy. If the reader has any dif 
ficulty about the above explanation of wyAagwueryw, a comparison 
of Ex. 19: 12, 13 with it, will hardly leave any doubt as to the 
meaning of our author, who seems plainly to have had in his mind 
the strict injunction then made, not to touch the mountain. 

Kai nexaupévn nugi .... Gvéddn, and to flaming fire, and 
thick clouds, and darkness, and tempest. As to the particulars of 
the appearance at Sinai here mentioned, see Ex. 19: 16—18. 20: 
18. Deut. 5: 22—26. 

Kexovuévo nvgi means not simply, fire, but the burning of it, 
i.e. flame; see Deut. 5: 23, 25. It may also be translated in con- 
nexion with dgez, sc. the mount that burned with fire. But probably 
it was not the design of the writer, that it should be so taken ; for, 
as he has arranged wrdagapévw before dese, while it qualifies it, 
in like manner he has arranged xexauuévm before avei, which it 
also qualifies. 

Ivogo, is probably the Aeolic form of véqos, i-g. vepédn, for 
which the Aeolians use y6qo¢ or yvogos. The Seventy use it’ to 
translate 73¥, in Deut. 4: 11, et alibi. It is doubtless used by the 
Seventy, and by the writer of our epistle, to designate the thick 
dark cloud that surrounded mount Sinai, when God appeared there. 
The word often means, tenebrae. Here it means, the cause of dark- 
ness, 1. e. thick black clouds. 

Sxotw, Hebrew Jw or Spa, the darkness or gloom itself, 
occasioned by the cloud upon Sinai and around it. Qveddy is de- 
signed, perhaps, to correspond to the Hebrew p>. If not, it is 
descriptive of the tempest that accompanied the dark cloud, the 
thunder and lightning of Sinai, Ex. 19: 16, 18. 20: 18. 

19. Kot oadneyyos iyo, and to the sound of the trumpet. See 


292 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 19—21. 





Ex. 19: 16, 19. Probably the meaning is, a voice like that of a 
trumpet, i.e. very loud. In Deut. 5: 22, it is called a great voice; 
in Deut. 4: 12, it is called, the voice of words, 1. e. articulate sounds ; 
and in Deut. 4: 33, the voice of God. From comparing all these 
passages together it seems evident, that the meaning is, ‘ an articu- 
late voice, loud like that of a trumpet.’ 

Koi povy 6nucrwy ....doyov, and the voice of commands, the 
hearers of which refused that another word should be added to them. 
Comp. Ex. 19: 16, 19 and 20: 18, 19. 

‘Pnuarov, things uttered or said. But it applies to any sort of 
speech, and, among other specific significations, it has that of com- 
mand; see Luke 3: 2. Acts 10:2. 11: 14. Heb. 1: 3. 11:3. So 
323 in Hebrew, e.g. Est. 1: 19. Josh. 1: 13. 1 Sam. 17: 29. Is. 
8: 10. Ex. 34: 28. So also “ax, to command, Est. 1:17. 4: Le. 
9: 14, 1 Chron. 21: 7. See Wahl, on 6juc. 

He oi axovourres. x,t. k. The exact shade of the writer’s 
meaning is, ‘The hearers of which [voice] refused that a word 
should be added to them, viz. avrois éjuaot, to those commands.’ 
In other words, the exceedingly loud sound of the voice inspired 
them with such terror, that they declined having any more com- 
mands addressed to them in this manner. 

20. Ov épegoy yao.... AcOeBodoOnoeras, for they could not 
endure the admonition, ‘ Even if a beast touch the mountain, it 
shall be stoned.” See Ex. 19: 13. The vulgate edition of the New 
Testament adds to this clause, 7} @odids xararokevdyjoerac. Bui 
no manuscript of any authority exhibits this phrase; nor any an- 
cient version ; nor any of. the ecclesiastic.] Greek writers, Oecu- 
menius excepted. [t,i8, beyond all doubt, an addition of later times, 
taken from the Septuagint of Ex. 19: 13. “@ux éqeoov, they could 
not endure, means, ‘they were greatly affected with the severity of 
this command, viz. so that they could not bear it without awe and 
terror.’ + 

21. Kai—ovrw gofsoor .... évraou0g, and—so terrible was 
the sight——even Moses said, “ I fear and tremble.” Ovrw gofegor 
7v 10 ~avtalouevoy seems to me, plainly, an expression thrown in 
by the writer, in order to augment the description of the scene, 
which interrupts the regular narration, and is therefore to be con- 
strued as if included in a parenthesis. But as the whole of ys. 20, 
21, is evidently a parenthesis, I have avoided the insertion of the 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 21, 22. 293 


ee el! LLL 
parenthetic marks a second time, and noted the words included 
within the inner parenthesis, by a dash at each extremity. Kat, 
which introduces the last clause here, zai. ... Mmvors, has the 
force of, and even. 

But where is the history of Moses’ trembling? No where, in 
the Old Testament, is it expressly mentioned. It is implied, how- 
ever, in Ex. 19: 16, where it is said, that ‘all the people in the 
camp trembled ;”” and Moses was with them, comp. v. 14. ‘The 
fear, mentioned Deut. 9: 19, was on a different occasion, though 
this passage has often been adduced as supporting the affirmation 
now in question. The particular history, to which our author here 
alludes, was doubtless a matter of tradition among the Jews of his 
day ; marks of which are still extant, in the Rabbinical writings. 
See Wetstein, on Gal. 3: 19. L. Cappell, on Hebr. 12: 21. “Zx- 
poBog etus xai évrgouog means, I am greatly afraid. 

To pavvaéouevov, (the neuter participle being used like a neu- 
ter adjective), is to be construed as an abstract noun, sc. species, 
appearance, sight. This idiom is very common in the writings of 
Paul. 

22. Next follows the antithesis to all this scene of terror, which 
accompanied the introduction of the ancient law. Worshippers, 
under the new dispensation, approach a scene of a very different 
nature. “Adha moooedniidate Svov, but ye are come to mount 
Zion. Not the literal mount Zion, but the figurative, i.e. heaven- 

ly one. This is made plain, by the additional description which 

follows. Kal modev Geov Cavros, “/ngovoadiju énovgavi, and to 
the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. The epithet 
éxovoavia here determines, of course, that a spiritual Jerusalem, a 
heavenly city is meant. Comp. Heb. 11: 14—16. 12: 28. 13: 14. 
Gal. 4: 26. Rev. 3: 12. 21: 2, 10. 

Kai uvgiaow, ayyzhov nmavynyvoer, and to myriads, the joyful 
company of angels. So beyond all reasonable doubt, this clause is 
to be pointed, and translated; for nayyjyugeg is not to be join- 
ed, (as some later critics have joined it), with éxxAnjole x. tr. 2. 
The structure of the whole paragraph demonstrates this; for each 
separate clause of it, (in vs. 18, 19, 22—24) is commenced by zaé, 
and continued (where any addition is made to it) by nouns in ap- 
position, without any conjunctive particle before them. E. g. xué 
moder... . Sngovoadnu énovoavicr—xal xoiry, Ger marta, ete. 


294 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 22--23, 





The same construction, beyond all reasonable doubt, is to be adopt- 
ed in the clause under examination. Dr. Knapp has arranged it 
in this manner, in his able dissertation on Heb. 12: 18—24, in his 
Scripta varii Argumenti. 

Muoveor, lit. myriads, i. e. ten thousands, used by the Greeks 
to signify a great and indefinite number. In respect to the number 
of angels, compare Rev. 5: 11. Matt. 26: 53. Luke 2: 13. Dan. 7: 
10. TTavyyveus, among the Greeks, meant an assembly of men 
convened on a joyous and solemn occasion ; e. g. on the occasions 
of their public feasts, etc. The mention of such an assembly of 
angels, shews that the writer intends to describe the objects of the 
invisible world, as seen with the eye of faith; not things palpable, 
not the objects of sense. He has, moreover, a design to contrast 
this joyful solemn assembly of the angels with that awful one, who 
were present at the giving of the law upon Sinai. In respect to 
the presence of angels on that occasion, compare Ps. 68: 17 [18]. 
Deut. 33: 2 (Septuagint). Joseph. Antiq. XV. 3,5. Gal. 3: 19. 
Acts 7: 53. Heb. 2: 2, with the note upon it. 

Our English version joins uugeaoe with ayyéhoy and renders, 
“to an innumerable company of angels.” It also joins mavnyvges 
with éxxAnolg, and renders, ‘to the general assembly and church 
etc.” But the latter is not permitted, on account of the manner in 
which the author has constructed the whole of his enumeration of 
particulars, in vs. 18, 19, 22, 23, which, as I have already observed, 
are each separated from the preceding one, by xai. If it be said, 
that ‘ revnyvger, in order to be constructed with ayyzkwv, ought to 
precede it,’ the answer is, that in v. 19, oalmiyyos nyo is construct- 
ed in the same manner as ayyzhwv mavnyvgee here ; as is also dva- 
nung weciry in v. 24. The Greek admits no other correct gram- 
matical mode of construction, but that which is given in the trans- 
lation. 

23. Kai éxxinola... . év ovgavoig, and to the assembly of the 
first-born, enrolled in heaven. *Exxinota, conventus, a concourse or 
assembly of people. It is not a mere ecclesiastical word, but desig- 
nates, by usage, any kind of assembly, sacred or civil. Here it de- 
signates the sacred assembly of the upper world. Tlowroroxmy 
must not be literally understood here, but figuratively. Among the 
Hebrews, primogeniture conferred distinguished rights and privile- 
ses. Hence, figuratively taken, mewrordxog means, any one who 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 23. 295 





enjoys distinguished rights and privileges, whether he is first-born 
in a literal respect, or not. Thus Israel, as beloved of God and 
highly valued, is called his first-born, Ex. 4: 22. In like manner 
Ephraim is named, Jer. 31: 9. So the Son of Sirach (36: 12) calls 
Israel. The same appellation of endearment is given to the pre- 
dicted Messiah, in Ps. 89: 27. In a similar sense amaoy7j is used, 
in James 1:18. I understand it here of those who had been most 
distinguished for piety and usefulness; such as patriarchs, proph- 
ets, apostles, martyrs, etc. Storr understands it as referring to the 
angels, and as descriptive of them; but without any good support 
from the usus loquendi of Scripture. 

 Anoyeyouupéverv, enrolled, a word employed by the Greeks to 
signify the inscribing of a person’s name in a record, as a citizen, 
as a free man entitled to all the rights of citizenship. It marks, 
here, citizenship in the New Jerusalem or the heavenly Zion. 
The éxxAnola of such, is that éxxAnola with which Christians are 
to mingle, in the full and final enjoyment of their privileges. In a 
sense somewhat different from this, saints, while on earth, are 
spoken of as having their names written (ysyoaupéva, éyougy, not 
anoyeyooupeva) in the book of life; e. g. Luke 10: 20. Phil. 4: 3. 
Rey. 3: 5. 13: 8.17: 8. 20:15. 21: 27. 22:19. Dr. Knapp in- 
terprets our text, as speaking of the saints on earth. But he ap- 
pears not to have noticed the difference of the phraseology employ- 
ed in reference to such; and certain it is, that the whole tenor of 
our passage has respect only to the heavenly city and assembly. 
To be enrolled in heaven, is to be entitled to all the privileges of a 
member of the heavenly city. 

Kai xoitn, Gem ~neavrwyr, and to the judge, the God of all. 
Kory designates him before whose tribunal all must appear, that 
enter a future world. But to Christians he is a merciful, not a con- 
demning judge. So means the phrase God of all, viz. of all an- 
gels, and of all mo wtord%x wy just mentioned, and (by implica- 
tion) of all saints. To say, ‘he is their God,’ means to affirm, that 
he acknowledges them with favour and approbation. Comp. Eph. 4: 
6. Rom. 3: 29. Heb. 8: 10. 11:16. Acts 7: 32. Ex. 3:6. Zech. © 
8: 8. Rev. 21: 37. In the same sense, I apprehend, is dew nav- 
tay to be understood in our verse ; and then all difficulty ceases. 
In entering a future world, Christians must, indeed, present them- 
selves before the tribunal of the eternal judge; but he is not a 


296 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 23, 24. 





judge severe and rigid; he is in an appropriate sense, their God ; 
he will regard them with favour, he will treat them with kindness. 
Thus all is inviting, with respect to the heavenly Zion. The 
transposition made by our English version, to God the judge of all, 
is against the arrangement of the text, and fails to give the appro- 
priate sense of the words. The meaning of 0 éai navtwy 20s, 
Rom. 9: 5, is different from d<0¢ mavtwy here, the former being 
““ supreme God.” 

Kai nvevuaor dtxaiwy revehecoperor, and to the spirits of the 
just made perfect, i.e. exalted to a state of final reward. This dif- 
fers from éxxAnola mowrotoxmy anoyeyouppévoy év ovgavorg, in 
that this latter phrase designates the more conspicuous and exalted 
part of the church invisible, (xeororozwy), such as patriarchs, 
prophets, apostles, martyrs, etc.; while nvsuuaoe dvxaiwy embraces 
all saints, ‘‘ of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.” 
See a like distinction in the heavenly world, adverted to in Rev. 4: 
4. That the elders, mentioned in Rev. 4: 4, were of those re- 
deemed from among men, is proved by Rev. 5: 8,9. Then fol- 
lows the nvevparta dixaioy rerehecwmpeéva, in Rev. 5:13. The pas- 
sage in our verse, understood in view of this, is intelligible, and 
needs none of the varying and endless conjectures which have 
been made respecting it, nor emendations of the text that have 
been proposed. 

Tetelevopevov, i.e. having completed their probation, and ar- 
rived at their mature state, viz. a final state of glory. See on Heb. 
2: 10. 

— 24. Kai dvadnuns .. +." Inoow, and to the mediator of the new 
covenant, Jesus. See on 8: 6. 7: 22, where the same idea is ex- 
hibited. wa, 

Kai aiuace... .” ABeh, and to the blood of sprinkling, which 
speaketh better [things] than [the blood of] Abel. Respecting the 
blood of Christ offered in the eternal sanctuary, see Heb. 9: 11— 
14, 23. In respect to sprinkling, see 9:13, 19. Figuratively or 
spiritually, no doubt, this is to be understood. Sprinkled with Je- 
sus’s blood, the worshippers in the sanctuary above may approach 
the presence of God, i.e. the inner sanctuary, confident of a gra- 
cious reception. 

Koeirrov AoAovvre, instead of xoeirrova Aahovrte, for the weight 
of authority is beyond all doubt on the side of xosizzoy. Literally 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 24, 25. 297 





rendered xgeirrov would be something better. But this is less 
grateful to the English ear, than the form of expression in the ver- 
sion. The meaning of the phrase seems to me quite simple and 
easy. The blood of Christ proclaims pardon and peace ; the blood 
of Abel cried to God from the ground (Gen. 4: 10), for the inflic- 
tion of punishment upon his murderer. IIaga tov (not ro) ” 48m, 
is an elliptical expression, for maga 70 aiue tov "Afni. That the 
verb Audet is understood, in order to complete the grammatical 
sense of the phrase, is quite plain. The form of the sentence, how- 
ever, must be varied in order to express this verb. It would be 
thus, 9) ro aiua tov ” AByd hadsi. 

Such is the contrast between the former and latter dispensation. 
There, all is awful, terrible, and threatening ; here, all is alluring, 
gracious, and animating. Who, now, can adhere to the former, 
and renounce the latter? Such is the nature of the argument pre- 
sented by the writer. He next proceeds to warn the Hebrews in 
the most solemn and affectionate manner, against a renunciation of 
their Christian faith. 

25. Bhenete, un .... dadovvra, take heed, that ye turn not 
away from him who addresses you. ITwouttéouae means, to depre- 
cate, to decline, to endeavour to avoid, aversari, respuere, repudiare. 
But who is tov Achodvra 2? ~The sequel of the verse clearly shews 
that Christ is meant, who came from heaven to instruct men and 
warn them of their danger, or rather (with reference to the pre- 
ceding verse) ‘ who speaks to men by his blood.’ 

To give efficacy to this warning, he adds an example. Ez yao 
éxéivoe.. . yonuatilovta, for if they did not escape [punishment], 
who rejected him that warned them upon earth. That after éguyoy, 
either dvx7v, am0decav, or some such word is to be supplied, by the 
mind of the reader, is plain from the nature of the subject, and of 
the context. But who is zov yonuarifovea? Moses, 1 answer. 
The two dispensations are here compared, in respect to the penal- 
ty to be inflicted on the contemptuous and refractory. The legis- 
lator, or head of each dispensation, is introduced, as the person 
who addresses the laws or warnings of God to men. See the same 
sentiment, in Heb. 10: 28, 29. 

TlohA waddov .. ... anoorgeqgomeros, much more shall we [not 
escape], if we turn away from him [who warns us] from heaven. 
See a similar commination, in 2: 1—3. 10; 28,29. That yonuati- 

VOL, If. 38 


298 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 25, 26. 


Corre is implied after ror, results from common grammatical usage. 
‘4x’ evgarayr is meant to represent, either that Christ from 
heaven and warned them, or that being in heaven he now warns 
them, viz. by his messengers. It is possible, howerer, that God is 
here meant by the writer, as he who warns them. But the antithe- 
sis between the head of the old dispensation and the new, in the 
passage, hardly admits of this construction. 

The ellipsis of ov gevtoueGa after gees, is sufficiently plain 

from the nature of the sentence. 
26. OF | qeery; . . . . rere, whose veice then shook the earth: 
viz. when, as with the sound of a mighty trumpet, waxing louder 
and louder, he spake on mount Sinai, so that the earth trembled : 
see on vs. 19 seq. 

Nr é2 . . . . ovgeror, but now, he has promised, saying, “* Yei 
ence more, will I shake not only the earth, but heaven also” ~Exi 
G@auet corresponds te the Hebrew Dra OMN Ws, wet ence, after a 
little time, Hag. 2.6. The citation is from the Septuagint, but 
OU wGror is an addition by the writer of our epistle, and is design- 
ed to give emphasis te the declaration. That the passage has re- 
spect to the changes, which would be introduced by the coming of 
the Messiah, and the new dispensation which he would commence. 
is evident from Hag. 2:7—9. Such figurative language is fre- 
quent in the Scriptures, and denotes great changes which are to 
take place. Se the apostle expluss & bere, im the wesy svat youne- 


Comp. Is. 13: 13. Hag. = 21, 2 22. Joel 3: 16. 2: 10, 31. Matt. 24: 
/ 22-31 comp. v. 3H. - 
Te dé, Fri axe . . . . Gaizveuera, mow this “ Yet once more.” 


signifies a remeving of the things which, wre shaken, as ef created 
thines, in order that the things which are not shaken, may continue. 
The manner in Which the writer understood the figurative expres _ 
sion im question, viz. the shaking of the heavens and the earth, is 
here plainly declared. It denotes a great change, a meradesus, 
removal, ot abelitien, of the things changed, i. e. of the Jewish di: 
pensation. The language which had been hterally applied to the 
quaking of Sinai, when the law was given, is now figuratively ap- 
plied, in the usual Scriptural way, in order to denote a great change 
of a moral nature. 

“Re xexownutrer is a locus veratissimus. It would be of little 
aE On ew epectenniaen ts most of which seem to 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 27, 28. 299 





have sprung from a misapprehension of the meaning of the para- 
graph, in which it stands. Even Michaelis and Storr interpret 
the passage as referring to changes in the natural world, at the 
end of time ;. most evidently, against the meaning of the writer. 
T understand zemocnuevey to designate simply things made or creat- 
ed, yetoonoinra, caduca, mutabilia; ideas necessarily implied, by 
a term which designates things of a corporeal and created nature, 
as here. The writer means to say, that the ancient order of things, 
viz. the Jewish dispensation, will be changed, removed, abolished, 
in like manner as the objects of the natural creation. In other 
words, like them, it is caduca, mutabilis, evanida; and like them, 
it will undergo achange. It really seems, that more difficulty has 
been made about the phrase in question, than was necessary. 

All this change or abolition of the old dispensation was to take 
place, in order that a new one might be introduced, which <R 
undergo no change ; iva wéivy Ta uy) Oahevomsra. 

28. Aso Baorletar .... maoakauSavovtes, wherefore, having 
obtained a kingdom which cannot be shaken, i. e. the gospel dispen- 
sation, the Saczdsiay rov Geov, OF TOD YOLOTOV, OF TOV OVOEOL, a 
regnum immutabile. Plainly the Saovdsiay aoedevror here, is the 
opposite or antithesis of cadevouev@y in the clause above, which 
must therefore mean, (in such a connexion), the Jewish dispensa- 
tion. The new dispensation is not, w¢ mexocnusveoy, like the objects 
of creation, i.e. is not mutable, caducous, but eoadsvtor, immuta- 
ble, not to be shaken, not to be changed. 

*Byouev yaou .... evkaSeiac, let us manifest our gratitude, 
(by which we may serve God acceptably), with reverence and devo- 
tion. “Eyouev yaouv, gratiam habeamus, i.e. let us express, mani- 
fest, exhibit gratitude, viz. for the unshaken kingdom which we 
have received, with all its privileges, preferences, and blessings. 
Evaogoras, acceptably, i.e. gratitude for such blessings is due to 
God, and to render it will be well-pleasing in his sight. 

Mere aidovs xai eviaSsiac, with pious reverence, i.e. let us 
not only exhibit gratitude to God for the mercies of the gospel, but 
let us add to this pious reverence for his spotless and awful perfec- 
tions. “Lvda@eva means, piety, pious devotedness, the spirit of re- 
ligious devotion; and aidws means reverence. I take the two 
words as designed to convey an idea of the inéense pious reverence, 
which ought to be paid to the great God whom the gospel exhibits. 


300 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 28, 29——-13: 1, 2. 





The principle, that one of two synonymous nouns, in such cases, 
may be employed for the sake of intensity, hardly needs to be again 
stated ; and that one of them may be employed in the room of an 
adjective is equally plain; so that, if we choose, we may translate, 
* with profound reverence.” 

29. Kai yoo .... xatavekioxov, for our God is a consuming 
fire. If this be not a quotation, the image is drawn from the de- 
scription of Sinai (v. 18), which was still in the writer’s mind. 
The idea is, that God, if called to punish unbelief, is not only sur- 
rounded by flaming fire, as he was on mount Sinai, but this is also 
mug xaravadioxov, devouring, destructive, tormenting fire. The 
awful punishment of unbelievers and apostates is set forth, by the 
expression in question, in a very striking manner. But probably 
the expression is a quotation of Deut. 4: 24, where it is employed 
by way of commination. - 


’ 


CHAP. XIII. 


1. °H qidodedqia wevero, let brotherly love continue, i.e. let it 
be constant, let it remain in exercise. I am, on the whole, dispos- 
ed to believe, that the writer means to say, ‘ Let it continue to be 
as it has hitherto been ;’ for he has repeatedly commended them, 
in_our epistle, for their social sympathies and brotherly feeling. 

 Dihadedqgia is the mutual love of Christians as such. 

2. Ino gedokevias un éxchavOaveode, cease not to practise hos- 
pitality, or, forget not hospitality. This was peculiarly a duty, in 
those times of persecution and distress, when many were suffering 
the loss of their means of subsistence, and were obliged to cast 
themselves on the charity of their brethren. 

Aa ravrng yao .... ayyéhoue, for by this, some have entertain- 
ed angels unawares. ” Ehadov Sevioavres, a truly Attic mode of ex- 
pression ; for the Greeks were wont to join the verb Aev@arw with 
the participle of another verb, when they wished to express the 
idea, that the action indicated by that other verb, was done uncon- 
sciously, undesignedly, without foresight. Literally the phrase may 
be translated, some entertaining angels were ignorant, viz. that they 
were doing so. See examples of the kind referred to, in Gen. 18: 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 2—5. 301 





2 seq. and Gen. 19: 1 seq. The meaning of the whole is, ‘ Con- 
tinue to practise hospitality, since greater honour and reward is 
consequent upon it, than you might be ready to suppose.’ 

3. Minvnoxeode .... svvdedsnévor, remember those who are in 
bonds, as if ye yourselves were fellow prisoners. The writer had 
before adverted to their past sufferings under persecution, 10: 32 
—-34 ; and also to their present trials, 10: 36. 12: 3—5. Here he 
exhorts them to sympathize with those who are in bonds, as if they 
themselves were in the like condition, because they were contin- 
ually exposed to be thrown into prison. A high degree of sympa- 
thy is designated by the expression, wg ovrdedeuevoe. 

Tov xaxovyovuevmy .... oopart, [remember] those who are 
injuriously treated, as [it becomes] those who are themselves still in 
the body. “Ovtesg év r@ oopare, i.e. daily exposed themselves to 
persecution and suffering ; and therefore liable to need commisera- 
tion from others. 

A. Tiwog 0 yauog.... amlavros, let marriage be honourable 
among all, and the bed undefiled. So it should be rendered, be- 
cause the whole strain is hortatory. So Schulz, ‘‘ Ehrenwerth sei 
allen die Ehe.”’ It is capable of another version, viz. marriage is 
honourable for all, etc. “Ev nou tiueos may also be translated, 
is altogether honourable. The first method, however, of rendering 
the phrase, seems to me preferable ; as it is then made to be con- 
gruous with the context. 

The fact, that such an exhortation is here addressed to the He- 
brews, shews, either that some of them were chargeable with a 
breach of the precept respecting chastity, or that they were in dan- 
ger of becoming so. Polygamy and concubinage were practised 
all around them, and had been for time immemorial. ‘The de- 
mands of Christianity, then, in respect to these practices, might 
seem a grievance to some of the Hebrew Christians, and probably 
they were tempted not to regard them, and needed caution. 

Tloovous 02... . 820g, but whoremongers and adulterers, God 
will punish or judge ; i. e. those who live in fornication, while un- 
married, or commit adultery after marriage, will not escape divine 
indignation. 

5." Aprheoyveos .... nagovor, let your conduct be free from 
covetousness ; and be content with what ye have. “Eorw is under- 
stood after 0 roomos, for the sentence is hortatory. Zodm0¢ means, 


302 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 5—’7. 


behaviour, the same as 790g, manner of life. *Aonovpmevor trois 
11090002, i.e. indulge no greedy desires for earthly possessions, 
but cheerfully submit to the allotment of providence in respect to 
these things. 

Aros yoo ..... éynuradinw, for he hath said, I will never leave 
thee nor forsake ea; i.e. God hath promised to provide for you, 
in the best manner, and you should put your trust in him. The 
phrase here quoted, may come either from Deut. 31: 6. Josh. 1: 5. 
or 1 Chron. 28: 20. 

6. “Qore FugGovvras....avGownos, so that we may boldly 
say, “The Lord is my helper and I willnot fear. What can man do 
tome?” The quotation is from Ps. 118: 6; where the Hebrew, 
which corresponds to xvovog éuoi Sonos, is %> mim, Jehovah is 
for me. 'The verse is divided by the accents in Hebrew, as the 
translation above divides it. The apostle has given the sense ex- 
actly; wore Dagdovvtas nuas sc. eivac, which is implied after 
wore. The meaning of the verse is, ‘Under whatever trials and 
difficulties we may be placed, we need not be filled with terror or 
painful apprehension ; for God will help us.’ 

7. Monuovevete .... 9800, remember your leaders, who have 
spoken unto you the word of God. “Hyovpevor, duces, praesides, 
leaders, guides, directors, which here means, teachers, as the ex- 
planatory clause that follows clearly shews. oyov rov Dou, the 
gospel. P ‘ 
*Qv avaPewoovvtes .... mlorev, and attentively considering 
the end of their manner of life, imitate their faith. 'Thatis, calling 
to mind the peaceful and happy death of those religious teachers 
among you, who gave you instruction respecting the word of life, 
imitate their faith, i.e. persevere in your Christian profession, as 
they did, to the very-end of life. 

Storr and others refer éx@aouy ro dvacrpoone to the sequel 
or reward that ensued, in consequence of the manner of life which 
these teachers had led. But I cannot find reason enough to be- 
lieve, that éx@aovv may be properly understood in such a sense. 
It is not improbable, that the writer refers here to the triumphant 
death of Stephen, Acts vir., and of James, Acts xu. He exhorts 
his readers to follow the example of those faithful Christian teach- 
ers, who had died a peaceful and happy death, although, perhaps, 
a premature one. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 8, 9. 308 





8. “Inoovs Xguorog.... aiwvas, Jesus Christ is the same, yes- 
terday, to day, and forever. That is, Christ is always the same, 
always ready and willing to aid you in all your trials; comp. 7: 3, 
15—17, 21, 25, 28; also 5:6,9. 2:18. 9:24. 10: 12—14, 23. 
“O arog corresponds with ov 6 euros ei, Ps. 102: 28 [Sept. 101: 
27], in Hebrew 8175 Tnx, which there designates immutability or 
eternity ; for the parallel distich is, Thy years shall not come to an 
end. The absolute eternity of Christ, (a parte ante, et a parte 
post), is not here directly asserted; but the simple object of the 
writer is, to shew that ‘he ever liveth to aid his disciples.’ To re- 
fer the expression to Christian doctrine, and unite this verse with 
the one which follows, seems to me plainly a deserting of the obvious 
intention of the writer. Dr. Schulz construes the passage as I 
have done. Xe, xai orjueoor, nai ic tovS avmvac, is a Hebra- 
ism, used to express the past, the present, and the future; and o 
avtOG, joined with these, denotes immutability. 

9. Adayaic novnihawg .... magagéoeode, be not carried hith- 
er and thither, by diverse and strange doctrines. Tlouxthousg nat 
Egvacg designates doctrines different, diverse, from true Christian 
doctrine, and foreign (strangers) to it. Such were the doctrines 
of the Judaizing teachers, respecting many of their ceremonial ob- 
servances, and traditionary rites; and to these the writer here ad- 
verts, as appears by the sequel. For nagagéosoGs, some manu- 
scripts and editions have asoupegeo%e, which Ernesti and some 
other critics prefer ; but it is not supported by equal authority. 

Kaloy yoo yooure .... msgemaryoavres, for it is good that the 
heart should be confirmed by grace, not by meats, by which those 
have not been profited, who have been occupied therewith. A diffi- 
cult expression, about which there has been a great variety of opin- 
ion and conjecture. Xagere seems to me plainly to refer here to 
the gracious truth or doctrine of the Christian religion. The wri- 
ter had just said ; ‘‘ Be not tossed to and fro by doctrines diverse 
and alien from Christianity.” Next follows the assertion, “It is 
good to be established, [settled, confirmed], in the gracious doctrines 
of the gospel, rather than to put confidence in meats, etc, Con- 
strued in this way, all is plain and congruous. Bowueor indicates 
the various kinds of meats, which were distinguished by the Juda- 
izing Christians into clean and unclean; the first of which might 
be safely and properly eaten ; but the second must be avoided, on 


304 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 9—I11. 





peril of losing one’s character for piety, and incurring the displeas- 
ure of God. All attention to this subject the writer regards as 
useless, and avers, that those who have been sedulously attentive 
to it, have reaped no spiritual profit from it. Jlegunaryoartes, 
like the Hebrew J>-1n=, means, to be concerned with, to be occupi- 
ed with, to bestow one’s attention upon. In regard to the unprofita- 
bleness of such an attention to meats, comp. Heb. 7: 18. 

10. "Lyouev ... . Aargevovtes, we have an altar, of which those 
have no right to eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. A 
figurative expression, borrowed from the Jewish ritual, and accom- 
modated to express the privileges of Christians. According to the 
usages of sacrifice, in most cases, some part or parts of the victims 
offered were reserved for the use of the priests, and, in some cases, 
were to be eaten also by the offerer; see Lev. 6: 26. Num. 18: 9, 
10. Lev. 7: 33, 34. Num. 6: 19. Lev. 7: 15. 19: 6. But the mb4y 
was a holocaust, i.e. an offering which was to be entirely consum- 
ed by fire; particularly, the n4>¥ offered on the great day of atone- 
ment, Lev. 16: 14—16, 27. Lev. 4: 3--12. The reference, in our 
text, is to those sacrifices, a part of which were eaten by the priests 
and the offerers, in so far as the writer alludes to partaking of 
them. But when he says, that ‘Christians have a sacrifice, of 
which those who pay their service to the altar have no right to par- 
take,’ he means, that the benefits, procured by the atoning sacri- 
fice of Christ, do not belong, or will not be granted, to such as rest 
their hopes of salvation on the ritual sacyifices of the Jewish law, 
i.e. to such as continue to be disciples of Judaism, or turn back 
from Christianity to Judaism, and thus renounce the blessings pro- 
cured for believers by-the death of Christ. 

11. “Qy yao sispégerar . .. . nageuBodns, moreover, the bodies 
of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary as a 
sin offering, by the high priest, were burned without the camp. See 
Lev. 16: 11, 14--16, 27. The construction of the verse is pecu- 
liar, and literally translated would run thus, “ The blood of which 
animals was brought into the sanctuary .... the bodies of the 
same were burned, etc.” ‘To make the verse plain, the arrange- 
ment has been altered, in the translation. “Auoeriag sin-offering, 
“or mgQ &uagtias, [offering] on account of sin, which conveys the 
same idea. The object, in offering the blood of goats and bullocks 
in the most holy place, was to make atonement for sin. JIageu- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 11—13. 305 








Bodne, camp, refers to the time when the Israelites were in the wil- 
derness, and all lived in encampments. 

12. Aco xat /noods.... Eade, wherefore, Jesus also, in or- 
der that he might make expiation for the people by his own blood, 
suffered without the gate. “Aywuon, might make expiation; see on 
2:11. Ava rov idiov aiuatos, comp. 9: 12, 14, 25, 26. 10: 19. 
Acts 20: 28. Eph. 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 19. Rev. 1:5. 5:9. “Zéw rng 
nvin¢, viz. the gate of Jerusalem ; for he was crucified on Calvary, 
which was then without the walls of the city, although it is now 
within them. 

Vs. 11, 12, are designed as a comparison, between the sacrifice 
on the great day of atonement, and the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. 
The blood of the former was presented before God, in the most ho- 
ly place ; the blood of the latter, in the eternal sanctuary above, 
9: 12, 23, 24. The bodies of the beasts, used for the former, 
were consumed or destroyed without the camp; the body of Jesus 
was sacrificed or destroyed, without the gate of Jerusalem. The 
atoning sacrifice of Christians is analogous, then, to that of the 
Jews; but of infinitely higher efficacy; comp. 9: 13, 14. 10: 4, 
12. 

The particular object, however, of vs. 11, 12, is to introduce 
Christ as an example of suffering, in order to impress upon the He- 
brews the necessity of perseverance in their Christian profession, 
amidst all their trials and difficulties. But the manner of intro- 
ducing this example, is altogether in unison with the analogies, 
which are so often repeated in other parts of our epistle. 

13. Toivuy e€eoymueda... .. geoovres, let us, then, go 
forth to him without the camp, bearing reproach like his. That is, 
* since Jesus suffered persecution, ignominy, and distress, let us fol- 
low him, even if we endure reproaches like those which he endur- 
ed. Let us leave the camp, i. e. the dwellings of the Jews, or, the 
profession of Judaism, and go over to the place where Christians 
dwell, although it be without the city.” In other words, Let us ad- 
here to the profession of Christianity, although ‘it be counted as 
ignominious and worthy of reproach. In respect to suffering with 
Christ, comp. Rom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 10, 11. 1 Pet. 4: 13. 2 Cor. 
4:10. Rev. 1:9. That ovecdcouoy avrov means, reproach such as 
_ Christ suffered, is plain from the object of the writer. Comp. Col. 
1: 24, which is exactly in point ; and see on Heb. 11: 26. 

VOL, Il. 39 


306 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 14—16. 


14. Ov yao éyouey. ... éncSnrodmer, for here we have no per- 
manent city, but we seek for one yet future. In 11: 14, the writer 
calls the heavenly inheritance which the patriarchs sought, aargi- 
Oa; and afterwards (v. 16), nodev. Here the appellation mode is 
used, because the writer had just been alluding to Christians being 
thrust out or going out of the city, viz. of Jerusalem, as Christ 
did, to suffer ignominy. The design of our verse is, to shew the 
Hebrews, that it cannot be of any great importance, should they be 
exiled from their dwelling places, and the habitations of their Jew- 
ish kindred ; for in this world, no habitation, no placé of abode, 
can be wévovoa, permanent, lasting. By profession, Christians, 
like the patriarchs, were seeking mutgidu énovgereov, and conse- 
quently mod pediovoay, an abode yet future, a residence in the 
world to come. 

15. Av ovrov ovr... 920), by him, therefore, let us continually 
present to God the sacrifice of praise. Av auvtov, viz. by Christ, 
i.e. let us present such an offering, by him who is our great high 
priest ; not a sacrifice of goats or bullocks, but a sacrifice of praise. 
In other words, ‘ Let us, as Christians, offer praises to God, for the 
blessings of the gospel vouchsafed to us.’ 

Totr éort, x0oTOV.... Ovouate avrov, that is, the fruit of 
our lips ascribing igre to him. The expression, sacrifice of 
praise, 371n Mt, is found in Lev. 7:12. A phrase similar to 
Sruit of the hips, is used by Hosea 14: 3 Hebrew p45 F72>W3 
72°n2wv, where Septuagint xaonoy yevdey. The meaning of our 
phrase i is, what the lips utter, viz. when they ascribe praise (0u0A0- 
yovverwy) to God. So Prey. 18: 20 7» 798; the fruit of the lips, 
i. €. what a man says, his words. 

“Opohoyotvrwy, like the Hebrew Svat means, to praise, cele- 
brate, publicly acknowledge. ’Ovouere is here, as commonly, a 
periphrasis for the agent to whom the name belongs, viz. God ; so 
that the sense is the same as rw dev). 

What follows rovr gorz, is added by the writer, in order to 
guard against the apprehension of any one, that he was exhorting 
them to offer the ritual sacrifices prescribed by the law. 

16. 779 2 evmotiag .... O0¢, moreover, forget not kindness 
and liberality; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ° Ext- 
AavPavw governs the genitive sUouiag and xorvwriac. The same 
strain of language, as before, is continued in this verse. Benefi- 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 16, 17. 307 





cence or kindness toward the suffering, and Liberality toward the - 
‘needy, are called acceptable sacrifices, or such as God is pleased 
_ with, The sentiment is, ‘duties like these, Christianity requires ; 
not the blood of bullocks and goats.’ 

17. eidtsoe.... UmEInETE, obey your leaders, and be sub- 
ject to them. “Hyovmévorg, inv. 7 above, is clearly used in the 
sense of teachers, who were in fact the guides or leaders of the 
Christian community. If there be any difference between me/deo- 
Oe in this case, and vmelxsre, the first has reference to positive 
obedience, in regard to any directions given them; the second pro- 
hibits any opposition to the teachers, in the measures which they 
might adopt to promote the improvement and the order of their re- 
ligious community. 

Avroi yoo ayounvovow .... aodwoovres, for they watch over 
your souls, as those who must render an account. ° Ayounvovot, 
watch ; the image seems to be taken from the practice of shep- 
herds, who watch with solicitude over their flocks, in order that 
they may preserve them from the ravages of wild beasts. See 
the like imagery employed, respecting the prophet Ezekiel, Ezek. 
3: 17. 

‘Tréo cov woyov vuov, i.e. for you, DI*wEId. “Rg Aoyow 
anodwoovres, viz. to God, to whom ‘‘every one must give an ac- 
count of himself;’’ particularly, every one put in a place of trust 
with regard to spiritual duties. 

"Ive mera yaous ....vovz0, [so obey] that they may do this 
with joy, and not with grief ; for this would be unprofitable to you. 

“fva x.t.4,1 cannot but connect with Aoyoy anodwoortes. 
The sentiment is, ‘That they may render their account with joy, 
because of the obedience which has been paid to their admonitions, 
and of the safety in which their ‘flock are placed thereby.’ An ac- 
count of successful labours will indeed be a joyful account, to the 
ministers of the divine word. In respect to grammatical construc- 
tion, iva seems to be connected with the verbs in the first part of 
the verse, viz. me(Oeote.... Unelnete ... iva méTa YaouS x.T.A.; 
but rovro movmoe necessarily refers to something already mention- 
ed, which the teachers must do; and what is this but Aoyor a0- 
dwoswv 7 I have been constrained, therefore, to supply the ellipse 
in the Greek here from the preceding context, and to translate, So 
obey, etc. 


308 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 17—20. 


My, orevagortes, lit. not groaning, i.e. not grieving, the effect 
being put for the cause. It is only a negative form of, expression 
here, designed to repeat the same idea as is conveyed by wera ya- 
ous, and to render it more intense. “Advorredég yao, another neg- 
ative expression, which means as much as to say, ‘ This would be 
very hurtful or noxious to you ;’ i.e. should their Christian teach- 
ers he compelled to give an account of unbelief and want of sub- 
jection in them, the consequences would be distressing. 

18. IooosvyeoGe negi juov.... avacreepecDut, pray for us; 
for we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all 
things to conduct ourselves uprightly. The request of the writer, 
that he may have an interest in their prayers, shews the friendly 
feelings and confidence which-he entertained respecting them. He 
appeals to the sincerity and uprightness of his Christian  deport- 
ment, as an evidence that he might claim a Christian sympathy 
for himself. Ziv’ aoe x.r.4. augments, or renders intensive, the 
idea contained in the preceding clause. 

19. T[sovocoréows 0... . piv, and I request this the more 
earnestly, in order that I may speedily be restored to you. This 
seems plainly to imply, that the writer was detained from paying 
those a visit whom he addressed, by some adverse circumstances, 
‘viz. either by imprisonment, sickness, or some like cause. It also 
implies, that he is known to them, and they to him; for it indi- 
cates that he had formerly been among them. 

20. “O 02 Beog .... moovr, now, may the God of peace, that 
raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, who, by the blood of an ever- 

lasting covenant, has become the great Shepherd of the sheep. “O Os 
og tg etonvns, God-who bestows happiness, auctor salutis. The 
Greek e/onvy, in the New Testament, like the Hebrew pidw, 
means, every kind of blessing or happiness. ‘O avayayav, who 
brought up, raised up, restored. Tov nowésva .... TOV péyar; 
comp. John 10: 11, 14—18. 

‘Ev aiuare dvwOjuns aéwviov some join with aveyoywr. But 
what can be the sense of, raising Christ from the dead by the blood 
of the everlasting covenant? Almighty power raised him from the 
dead ; not the blood of the covenant. Beyond all reasonable doubt, 
then, év aiware x. r. 1. characterises the great Shepherd, who “ laid 
down his life for the sheep, John 10: 15;” and who sanctioned a 
new testament or covenant by his blood, Heb. 9: 15—23. Matt. 


COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 20—22. 309 











26: 28. The meaning is, that ‘the great Shepherd is provided 
with, or (so to speak) carries along with him, blood sanctioning a 
covenant which is of perpetual force.’ So, in Heb. 9: 25, the high 
priest is said to have entered yearly into the most holy place, éy 
wddorol@ aiuare, i. e. carrying with him the blood of bullocks and 
goats. See also Wahl’s Lex. éy, no.2. The phrase is plainly an 
allusion to the preceding discussion, in chap. rx. I have render- 
ed it so as to prevent a mistake, in regard to its true meaning. 

21. Karaorioas vuas év navi goyw ayat, fit you for every 
good work, i.e. prepare you in all respects to act worthily of the 
Christian name, enable you in all respects as Christians to dis- 
charge your duties. Zig ro moejoas to GeAyua avrov, so that you 
may do his will, i.e. perform all which he requires. This is of the 
same import as the dative with éy, in the preceding clause. 

Tlovay év vuiv . ... Xgeorov, working in you that which is 
pleasing to him, thraugh Jesus Christ. That is, enabling you to 
periorm all your | Christian duties, which will be acceptable, EUAQEO- 
rov évwmvov avrov, pleasing in his sight, 99325 250, pleasing to 
him. Ava’ Inoov Xovorod, i. e. may he do this, for Christ's sake, 
through Christ, or, perhaps, by the influence of the Christian reli- 
gion. 

"Run doka....°Aunyv, to whom be glory for ever and ever, 
Amen. ‘The nearest antecedent to «, is £ Xocvorov; and to him, 
it seems to me, the doxology plainly belongs. Other examples of 
a similar nature, may be easily shewn; e. g. Rev. 1: 6. 1 Pet. 4: 
11. 2 Pet. 3: 18. Doxologies introduced feito the midst of a letter, 
in this way, are characteristic of the writings of Paul. 

22. Tlaoaxahn 02 vuas .... nagaxdnoews, moreover, T beseech 
you, brethren, to bear with this word of exhortation; for I have 
written briefly to you. *“Avéyw means, to bear patiently with, to 
receive or permit with kind feelings, to put up with. Aoyov nmago- 
zdjoews is simply, exhortation. Some refer this only to the last 
part of the epistle ; but the whole is intermixed with hortatory ad- 
monitions. The writer, after speaking so plainly, and giving 
warnings so awful, endeavours to win those whom he addresses, to 
a patient toleration of his plain dealing. 

Ae Goayewr, an usual Greek expression, for briefly, within a 
short compass. ‘But how,” it is asked, «“ could Paul say this, 
when this epistle is longer than any one of his, that to the Romans, 


310 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 22—25. - 





7 


and the first to the Corinthians, excepted?” But is it to be suppos- 
ed, that those, whom the apostle now addressed, were acquainted 
with all of his other epistles; and that they would estimate the 
force of due Boayéwy, by a comparison of our epistle with them? 
It is much more reasonable to suppose, that the writer means to 
say, that he had written briefly, considering the importance and dif- 
ficulty of the subjects of which he had treated. And who will de- 
ny this? 

23. Tivwoxuete .... anodehupévor, know ye that [our] brother 
Timothy is sent away. See on the meaning of this, Introduction, 
Vol. I. § 19. pp. 132 seq. 

Me¥ ob... . Uma, with whom, tf he speedily return, I shall 
visit you. Me® ov, in company with whom. ° Eav raytov éoynroe 
implies, that Timothy was then absent. Of course, anodeduuevor 
cannot well mean, set at liberty. But if the meaning be, as I have 
rendered it, then is the reason plain why Paul should say, gay go- 
yntat. If Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and set at liberty 
there, why should the writer (at Rome) speak of his coming to him? 
If in some other place, how should he know of his liberation, soon- 
er than those whom he addressed ? 

24. “Aonaoacts navrag.... aytovs, salute all your leaders, 
and all the saints. °Aonacaode means, Present them with my 
kind wishes, and my regard for their welfare. ‘Ayiovs, those who 
are consecrated to Christ, professing Christians, saints. 

*Aonatovrat...."/rakias, they of Italy salute you; viz. the 
_ Italians, see Introduc. I. § 19. pp. 139 seq. ‘This shews that the 
writer was in Italy ; from which country, he sends the kind greet- 
ing of Christians there. 

25. “H yaou pera navrmv vuov "Aw, grace be with 5 you all, 
Amen; a frequent form of benediction in the apostolic epistles. 
Xages means, divine favour or blessing. 

The subscription to this epistle runs thus; ZTgo¢ “ZPoaious 
éyougn and tS Sradlas due Tiwod tov. Like most of the other 
subscriptions to the epistles, it is of no authority. It is demonstra- 
bly erroneous here ; for how could Timothy write this epistle, when 
the author says, at its very close, that Timothy was then absent ? 
The author of this subscription, one is tempted to think, had either 
read the epistle with very little care, or with very little understand- 
ing of its contents. . ' 


EXCURSUS f. 


> Xa AQ ~ 
Heb. 1: 2. 4 ov xai tovs atoveas eOinoé. 


There still remains a difficulty in this passage, (in common 
with Eph. 3: 9), as to the form of expression, or rather, as to the ob- 
ject of the assertion. 

In John 1: 3, it is said, nevra dv’ avrovd [Aoyou] éyévero ; in 1 
Cor: 8: 6, dv’ od ['/joov Xovorov] ra mevte; in Col. 1: 15, év at- 
ro [Xovorw] éxcio9y ra navta; in Col. 1: 16, ra aavra dc av- 
rov [X@eorov] ... . éxrvorae ; and in Heb. 1: 10—12, ov xar’ ag- 
yas .... tv yyy EDsushinoas, xal Zoya tTwY yErouy Gov éioly oi 
oveavol. In all these passages, the creation of all things is simply 
ascribed to Christ ; just in the same manner as in Gen. I: 1, God 
is said to have created the heavens and the earth. * 

The reader is desired specially to mark the mode of expression, 
in the passages above quoted ; as it is important for him to have a 
distinct cognisance of it, in order that he may perceive the difficul- 
ty which [ am about to state. Ifthe Scriptures had no where as- 
cribed the creation to any other than the Logos or Christ, and 
had employed, in ascribing it to him, only such language as that 
just quoted above, I cannot perceive, that any interpreter of the 
sacred writings would have ever thought of ascribing creation to 
any other than to the Logos simply; I mean, that so far as the 
Scriptures are concerned, he never would have thought of ascrib- 
ing any sentiment to them, in respect to this subject, but that which 
assigns creatorship simply and solely to Christ or the Logos. 
There is, plainly, no difference in the mode of expression in the Bi- 
ble, which asserts creatorship of God, or which asserts it of Christ. 
I must be understood, of course, to affirm this here, only of that 
class of texts which has just been quoted above. 


312 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 





But there is another view of this subject, which presents difhi- 
culties that cannot be surmounted without some effort. The 
Scriptures do indeed ascribe creatorship to the Logos ; as we have 
seen. But do the sacred writers mean to ascribe it to him absolute- 
ly, in the highest sense, as his sole and independent act? Or, do 
they represent him as creating by direction of the supreme God, and 
under his superintendence ?_ In other words, Was the Logos the 
original author of the universe ; or, was he only the instrument by 
which the original author brought it into being ? 

Questions easily asked; but answered with somewhat more 
difficulty, than unreflecting minds may at first imagine. All is to 
be resolved, by what the Scriptures have taught us. So one and 
all, who profess any sacred regard for the Scriptures, must con- 
cede. What then say the Scriptures on this point of all points, in 
respect to the great question of the real nature of Christ? Is he 
Creator by virtue of his ozwn, or by virtue of a delegated power ? 

One thing it appears somewhat important to consider, before we 
advance any farther in the investigation of this subject. If Christ 
were only the instrument, employed by the supreme God to bring 
the creation into existence, and to arrange it in its present order, 
the sacred writers might assert, and might truly assert, that mavra 
Ov avrov éyévero, or, év autw éxtiodn ta mavra. It may be said, 
with equal truth, that the church of St. Paul’s in London was built 
by Christopher Wren, and that it was built by the monarch who 
was the procuring cause or author of the structure, and by whose 
direction and at whose expense it was reared.» Every day, men 
' familiarly employ language in this manner, ascribing the building 
of a structure, either to the owner, or to the architect, just as the 
nature of the case may require. 

Do the Scriptures ascribe creation then to Christ, as architect 
merely ; or, as original author and deviser of the whole? In oth- 
er words, Is that class of texts, which ascribe creation to Christ, to 
be modified by admitting the idea, that creating by delegated power, 
i. e. (so to speak) as architect only, is meant ; or, are these texts to be 
understood in their Hees sense, viz. in the sense of ascribing to 
Christ or the Logos original authorship, creating in the highest sense? 

To prepare the way for an answer to this question, we must 
make inquiry respecting a second class of texts, such as those 
which I shall now subjoin. 


Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 313 





In Heb. 1: 2, the writer asserts, that Gop made all things By uIs 
Son ; and in Eph. 3:9, r@ [@ew] ra navre xtiourte dia yoou 
Xovorov, Gov created all things sy Jesus Curist. The latter 
clause, dva /. Xovorov, is indeed wanting in some Codices of good 
estimation, and is rejected by Griesbach from the text. But Knapp 
and Tittmann have inserted it, and the weight of authority seems to 
favour the admission of it. That the sentiment is not without a 
parallel, is clear from Heb. 1: 2. 

In we two cases, then, the assertion of the apostle is, that 
Gop made all things BY his Son, or, py Jesus Christ. 

Are these expressions, now, to be interpreted in such a way, as 
to qualify all the first class of expressions ascribing creatorship to 
Christ, so that they must be understood as asserting nothing more, 
than that he performed an instrumental or ministerial work only, 
and did not act as original author in bringing the universe into be- 
ing? This is the simple question before us, divested of all extraneous 
constructions put upon either class of texts by opinions previously 
formed, or views adopted in consequence of reasoning @ priorz. 

Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is evident, that 
nothing of importance can depend, either in respect to Heb. 1: 2, 
or Eph. 3: 9, on the word dva. It has often been asserted, that 
this preposition is employed before the genitive case, only to de- 
signate a secondary or instrumental cause. But this is altogether 
incorrect, both in respect to sacred and classical usage; as even 
the common Lexicons of the New Testament will shew. The 
cause, whether principal or instrumental, may be, and often is, de- 
signated ley Ova before the genitive. 

Av ov, then, might designate, (by itself considered), the prin- 
cipal cause or original author of the worlds. This expression, 
however, does not involve the nodus of the difficulty, in the case 
before us. ‘The assertion is not here, that ad/ things were made BY 
the Son, but that GOD made all things BY him. In what manner, 
now, ought we to interpret this ? 

How the most noted commentators of the Greek church under- 
stood this difficult passage, is worth a serious inquiry. Chrysostom 
in explaining it says, “ As the Father judgeth no one, but is said 
to judge by his Son, because he hath begotten him who is judge ; 
so also he is said dyucoveyeiy de auvrov Ore Onucoveyor auroy éyev~ 

VOL. II. 40 


314 Excursus I. Hen. 1: 2. 


vnos, to create by him, because he hath begotten him who is the Cre- 
ator.” He then proceeds, “ Ei yao avzovu aitiog 0 nano, nokAm 
paddoy tay Ov avrov yeyevynuevor, for if the Father is the cause 
of him, much more of the things made by him.’ Hom. I. in Epist. ad 
Heb. p. 15. Vol. XII. Ed. Montfaucon. To the same purpose 
Theophylact, * éwewé 02 aitiog 0 matr@ Tov Viov, EtxOTMS Kal TOY 
Um auvrov yevouevar, seeing the Father is the cause of the Son, he 
must surely be of the things made by him.”” Comm. in Heb. Tom. II. 
p- 650. edit. Venet. 1755. Here, also, the generation of the divine 
substance of the Son is asserted, and the appeal is made to this 
doctrine as solving the difficulty of our text. But as the idea of 
self existence, existence uncaused, and independence, enters essen- 
tially into all our conceptions respecting a nature truly divine, and 
is a sine qua non in all our apprehensions of a Creator, it is diffi- 
cult for us to concede that the Father can be the cause (aiérzog) of 
the Son in his divine nature, without of course admitting that the 
Son, as divine, must be a dependent being, a devteoog eos only, 
as many have called him. The explanation of these fathers, (who 
accord with most of the ancient ecclesiastical writers), seéms then 
only to remove one difficulty, by bringing forward another still 
greater. This explanation also is forced upon the text. The wri-_ 
ter of our epistle does not say, nor intimate, that ‘ God created all 
things by his Son, inasmuch as he is the cause, (aérvos, doyn, as 
Chrysostom calls him), of the Son.’ Can it be proper to force on 
the sacred writer a mode of metaphysical explanation, drawn from 
- the philosophy of later. ages, and foreign to the simplicity of the 
Scriptures ? : 

In modern times, the mode of explaining our text is founded 
on what the systems of theology denominate, ‘* subordination in 
respect to the persons of the Godhead.” ‘Thus Owen, on Heb. 1: 
2, says, ‘‘ [he joint-working of the Father and Son doth not infer 
any other subordination but that of subsistence and order ;” he 
means the hypostatical subordination of persons, or order of their 
existence in the Godhead. The amount of the explanation, adopt- 
ed by him and many others, is, if I rightly understand it, that God 
the Father, in the order of subsistence (not of time) preceding the 
Son, did, by the Son, create the worlds. But whether this ex- 
planation renders the text any more intelligible, may perhaps be 
well doubted. Especially so, as Owen, on the same passage, says, 


? 
- 


Excoursus I. Hen. 1: 2. 315 





“The same individual creating act, is the work of the Father and 
the Son ; whose power and wisdom being one and the same undivided, 
so also are the works which proceed outwardly from them.” But 
if the power and wisdom of the Father and Son are not only one, 
but the saME UNDIVIDED ; on what, it may be asked, is founded 
the evidence, that a suBorDINATION of subsistence and order exists 
in the Godhead? If the attributes of the Godhead are one and the 
SAME undivided, how can we come at the evidence of a physical or 
metaphysical sunorDINATION of subsistence, or hypothesis? Can 
such a subordination of subsistence be in any way known to us, ex- 
cept through the medium of the divine attributes? But these are 
affirmed to be one and the same undivided. Are we able, then, to 
shew what the distinction in divine essence is; or to define the 
mode in which the metaphysical essence of the uncreated Being ex- 
ists? Where is the passage of Scripture which does this? I am 
aware that an appeal is here made to those texts which mention 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in connexion ; and particularly to the 
order in which they are mentioned. But of these texts there are 
only three. The first is in Matt. 28: 19, where the order just pre- 
sented is observed. The second is in 2 Cor. 13: 13, where the 
Lord Jesus Christ is placed first. The third is in 1 John 5:7; 
a text, which if not proved to be spurious, is at least thrown into a 
state so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would at present 
think of appealing to it as authority. 

Is then, we may well ask, the order of subsistence or hypostasis, 
(which is so much insisted on and so often appealed to by the 
schoolmen), a doctrine taught by the sacred writers? Or rather, 
is it not one of the inventions of metaphysical philosophy, in order 
to remove apparent difficulties in the sacred text? Can any one 
point out the text of Scripture, in which God is presented in a 
physical or metaphysical manner, so that his essence or mode of 
subsistence, in itself considered, is offered to our consideration 2 
If not; and if God, only in his relations to us and the creation 
around us, God as developed by his attributes, and not as he is in 
himself or considered in respect to his internal essence, be revealed 
to us in the bible ; why not be contented with what the Scriptures 
have taught, without forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers, 
which have been excogitated only by metaphysicians of later days ? 

Owen himself, after going through a protracted consideration 


316 Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 





of our text, with that good sense and humility for which he was so 
conspicuous, adds, “ It is not for us to inquire much into or after 
the reason of this economy and dispensation. We cannot by search- 
ing find ont God, we cannot find out the Almighty unto perfec- 
tion.” He means, ‘ We cannot find out the economy of God’s cre- 
ating the worlds by his Son, and the doctrine of subordination 
which is implicated in this.’ Happy would it have been for the in- 
terest of humble and candid inquirers, had this sentiment produc- 
ed its proper influence.over all the writings of Owen himself, and 
of many other eminent and excellent men! : 

Will not most sober and intelligent inquirers, of the present 

day, agree in saying, that the nature and modus of the. distinction 
in the Godhead is not an object of revelation, and that it is BEYOND 
the boundaries of human knowledge? Let those, now, who write 
or teach respecting this momentous and awful subject, act consis- 
tently with such an avowal, and very much of the perplexity, which 
is still occasioned by incautious assertions in regard to it, will be 
saved. 
The ground which Owen and so many others have taken, to 
explain the phrase in Heb. 1: 2, is not satisfactory, because it is 
built on the assumption, that we know that which is beyond the 
boundaries of human knowledge, and which, after much exam- 
ination, Iam compelled to believe is not revealed-in the Scrip- 
tures. 

The difficulty of our text, then, still femains. It would be pre- 
sumption in me, to promise a solution of it that will be satisfactory. 
But as the subject is so deeply interesting, to all sincere and hum- 
ble inquirers after the simple meaning of the sacred writers, I will 
venture to suggest a few considerations for reflection. 

Words are the signs of ideas. Words are human, i. e. they be- 
lone to men ; they are employed by them; and employed to desig- 
nate, of course, the ideas which men have in their own minds. 
All these ideas are derived from sensation, reflection, or conscious- 
ness. ‘The perceptible objects without us, and the mental pheno- 
mena within us, are all the objects from which we can derive ideas 
through the medium of observation. Reflection, or reasoning upon 
the knowledge derived from these, may Jead us to many new ideas ; 
all of which, however, have their basis in the perceptions of objects 
external or internal. 


Excoursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 317 





As words are merely arbitrary signs of ideas, so when employ- 
ed in their original sense, they can never signify more than the 
things for which they stand. But words may be employed figura- 
tively. When we come, by reasoning or reflection, to the knowl- 
edge and belief that there exists a Being who created the world ; 
who is himself uncreated, eternal, and immutable ; who is not the 
object of perception by any of our senses ; and for the description 
of whom, nene of the words of our language were originally form- 
ed: we are then obliged to apply to the description of this Being, 
words already in existence. But these words, it is plain, must in 
such a case be used nearly always in a sense more or less qualified, 
and differing, from. their original and literal sense. Even in ex- 
pressing our ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, 
where there is a particular resemblance between him and man 
formed in his image, we do not apply to the Divinity the most com- 
mon words, in exactly the same sense as we do to men. When 
we say, he is wise, we do not mean that he acquired his wisdom, 
or possesses it, or exercises it, just in the manner thatmen do. We 
mean that there is, in his wisdom, something analogous to wisdom 
in men; something which selects the best ends, and chooses the 
best means of accomplishing them. But we do not mean to imply, 
that the acts of selecting and choosing in the Divinity, are, in all 
respects, analogous to our own. 

We say, God is omnipresent. But we do not mean that he is 
present every where, in the same manner as human beings are 
present at any particular place. We do not mean that actual phys- 
ical presence of body, or of substance, is necessary to his being 
present ; in other words, we do not mean, that he is physically dif- 
fused through the Universe. We mean, that at the same instant, 
he can act, and does act, any where, or every where. Here is 
some analogy between him and us. We must be physically pre- 
sent in order to act ; and we say, therefore, that where he acts, he 
is present. This istrue in some sense ; but as to manner, how ex- 
ceedingly different is his being present from our own ! 

We say, Godis mighty. But when we speak of might in him 
we do not associate with it the idea of firm sinew, of vigorous mus- 
cle, of robust body, of mature age, of perfect health ; all of which 
enter into our apprehensions of consummate strength in man. We 
content ourselves with one simple point of analogy. God has pow- 


318 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 





er to do whatever he desires to do; or, he is almighty. In this 
respect his might or strength is like that in men ; it is power to ac- 
complish the objects which strength or might is adapted to accom- 
plish. But the might of the Deity infinitely excels that of men in 
degree. Here is one point of dissimilarity. It depends, too, on 
very different causes for its exercise. Here is another. But still, 
we speak of power in God, as frequently as we do of power in men. 
The imperfection of language obliges us to make use of words, in 
this way. But who that has any reflection will say, that the words 
which we apply to God are used entirely in the same sense, which 
belongs to them when they are applied to men ? 

In the same manner we might proceed, in the consideration of 
every one of the divine attributes, whether natural or moral. In 
regard to them all, we should find that there is only some one point 
of analogy on which our assertion rests, when we apply human 
language to the description of God; and that the manner in which 
he possesses or exercises any of his attributes, physically consider- 
ed, is utterly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge; and in- 
deed that it was never meant to be an object of assertion, by any 
intelligent man who makes assertions in regard to the Supreme Be- 
ing. 

If all this is well understood, we are now prepared to advance 
a step farther, and see our way clear. Nothing can be more evi- 
dent, (I might say, self-evident), than that the eternal, uncreated, 
uncaused, independent, infinite, and self-existent God, must, as to 
his mode of essence and existence, be unlike to temporary, created, 

caused, dependent, finite beings, with a derived existence. The 
very fact that God is as he has been just described, and man as he 
has been represented, necessarily forces this conviction upon us. 
Nothing can be plainer, then, than that all human language, form- 
ed at first merely to express human conceptions of finite and creat- 
ed objects, must in itself be altogether incompetent fully to describe 
the Divinity. Nor could any language be formed by created be- 
ings adequate to this purpose ; for the plain reason, that no finite 
being could ever have a full conception of the infinite and uncre- 
ated Being. 

All our language, then, when used to describe God, must be 
considered rather as analogical only, than as capable of being sim- 
ply applied to him in its usual sense. Any description made by it, 


Excursus [. Hes. 1: 2. 319 


is only an approximation towards a full description of what is di- 
vine. This has been shewn above. And could this be remember- 
ed and rightly applied, in all our discussions respecting the nature 
of the Supreme Being, it would save much of the difficulty and 
darkness, which now embarrass this great subject. 

No assertion, indeed, can be made respecting God, which, if 
its language be understood and applied altogether in the same sense 
in which it is understood and applied when made of man, will not 
lead to contradiction or absurdity. This is evident from such plain 
eases as those already presented ; viz. God is wise; God is omni- 
present; God is mighty. If there is still any doubt here, take 
another case. God has knowledge. This is certainly true. But 
with us, knowledge can be possessed only through the medium of 
corporeal organs of sensation ; it is acquired successively ; in time ; 
within a limited space; by the aid of memory, of comparison, of 
reasoning, of imagination; and when needed for use, it is sum- 
moned by recollection. When we say, ‘A man has knowledge,’ 
we imply all these things by the use of these words. But if we 
say, ‘God has knowledge,’ do we mean to assert that he has cor- 
poreal organs of sense; that he gradually acquires ideas; that, 
limited by time and space, he does this; that he makes the effort 
of charging the memory with it; the effort of comparing, of reason- 
ing, of imagination, of recollection, in any manner like ours? Who- 
ever says this is an anthropomorphite indeed ; such an one, too, 
as is not to be often met with, (I would fondly hope), in these days 
of better illumination respecting the exalted and spiritual nature of 
the Divinity. 

From these obvious considerations, we may now proceed to ex- 
amine the language of the sacred writers, in regard to the difficult 
point which suggested the subject of this Excursus. Two things 
seem to be equally the object of assertion, in the holy Scriptures. 
The first, that there is but one God; the second, that the Logos 
or higher nature which dwelt in Christ, is truly divine, or is truly 
God. Of the first, it would be superfluous to produce proofs here. 
The Old Testament is full of them; and the New as distinctly re- 
cognizes the same doctrine; see John 17:3. 1 Cor. 8: 4,6. 1 
John 5: 20. Luke 18: 19. Matt. 19:17. A formal proof of the 
second point would be out of place, in an exegesis designed only 
for the explanation of a particular phrase. It must suffice merely 


320 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 





to advert to John 1: 1. Rom. 9: 5. Titus 2: 13. 1 John 5: 20; the 
two former instances of which are so express, that no critical in- 
genuity can avoid the application of the term God to Christ; the 
third, when examined by the principles of grammar and of the 
usus loquendi of the New Testament, is scarcely less certain; and 
the fourth has ‘never, yet, been satisfactorily explained away. 

But how can the Logos be truly God, and yet be with God, and 
be the agent ny wuicu God made the worlds? Here lies, it must 
be confessed, the very essence of all the difficulty, which embarras- 
ses so many minds; and on this point we must now venture to 
dwell with some particularity. 

In the first place, our minds are embarrassed with the difficulty 
which such a statement respecting the Logos makes, in regard to 
the divine unity. Let us see if the source of this embarrassment 
cannot be distinctly pointed out. 

Trinitarians have been accustomed; for many centuries, to 
characterize the distinction in the Godhead, by the word person. 
Whether this word was well or ill chosen, it is not my present ob- 
ject to inquire. Thus much is certain; many, perhaps even the 
greater part of men in Christian lands, have incautiously attached to 
this word, when used in respect to the Godhead, a sense nearly (if 
not quite) the same, as they attach to it in common usage. Not a 
few theologians and critics have, indeed, protested against such 
an application of the word; and some of those, who have been 
most eminent for their steadfast adherence to the belief that the 
Saviour possesses a nature truly divine, have raised their voice, 
high against such an application of it; but unfortunately for the 
cause of truth, this voice has been listened to only by some of those 
who were friendly to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Oth- 
ers, with different views, have commonly thought proper to pay no 
attention to such a protest; but to take advantage, in their efforts 
to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, of the arguments which 
might be put into their possession, by taking the word person in its 
usual acceptation. 

If now we speak of the Logos as a person; and of God the Fa- 
ther as a person; and attach to the word person the sense that is 
usual in common parlance ; then it is certain, indeed, that the dif- 
ficulty which lies in the way of supposing the Logos to be truly 
God, and yet consistently maintaining the divine unity, is altogeth- 


~ 


Excoursus I. Hes. 1: 2. $21 





er insurmountable. ‘‘ Person is an intelligent substance ;” (if I 
may use the language of philosophy for the sake of definition). 
" Substance,” as defined by Baumgarten, a divine of the old school, 
of high orthodoxy, and of great metaphysical acuteness, ‘is that 
which can exist by itself, or unassociated with another thing ;” 
Substantia est id, quod potest existere ita, ut ponatur extra alterum, 
Metaphys. 191. 36. 231—233. As defined by another logician 
and philosopher, famous for nice distinctions of definition, ‘* Sub- 
stance is that which exists, or may be supposed to exist, although 
it is connected with nothing else ;”’ Substantia est id quod est, aut 
esse posse putatur, etaimsi nulli alit sit junctum, Ulrichs’ Inst. Log. 
et Metaphys. § 316. To apply the word person, then, in the sense 
which such definitions necessarily afford, to the distinctions in the 
Godhead, inevitably leads to Tritheism, and of course to a virtual re- 
jection of the divine unity. We may say, in words, that we believe 
God is one, although we assert that there are three persons in the 
Godhead as just defined ; but nothing is plainer, than that in such 
a case we believe merely in a specific unity, not in a numerical one. 
Specific unity, however, might admit three thousand or three mill- 
ion divine beings, and yet consistently maintain that there is but 
one God ; that is, it might do so, provided we allow the advocates 
of it that there is a yevo¢g Ostov, genus divinum, or genus of divini- 
ties. Human nature, for example is one; there is but one nature 
of man; yet the individuals of this genus are without number. 
That such is not the unity which the Scriptures assert of the God- 
head, I need not stop to prove. 

He who consistently holds the numerical unity of the Godhead, 
must, beyond all doubt, protest against the application of the word 
person to designate the distinctions of the divine nature, if that 
word is to be taken in its dogical or metaphysical sense. For 
however one may hold to words and forms of expression, it is plain, 
that while he makes such an application of the word person to the 
Godhead, he in fact admits Tritheism, although he may be. far 
from any design or any consciousness of doing so. 

The views which have now been presented, may serve to ex- 
plain the reason why many find it so difficult, or (as they think it) 
impossible, to admit the true divinity of the Logos. “How can 
he,” say they, ‘ be the second person in the Godhead, and yet be 

VOL. II. 4] 


Med 


322 Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 





one with the first? How can he be with God, and yet be God 
himself ? 

And truly, it must be confessed, that this cannot be, provided 
the words in question are to be construed altogether more humano, 
i.e. in their logical, common, usual acceptation. But is it analos 
gous, is it proper, to construe them thus? Does it develope a 
spirit of candid and fair inquiry, to insist that these terms shall be 
construed altogether according to their common acceptation, when 
there is not, as we have seen above, a single term significant of a 
divine attribute, which we ever construe in such a manner 2 

If this be correct, (and I may venture to say it cannot be reas- 
onably disputed), thenyI see no very urgent reason why the use of 
the word person, in order to designate a distinction in the God- 
head, should be rejected. It is true, itis not a word which is ap- 
plied by the Scriptures to the Godhead, (for uxdoraoug in Heb. 1: 
3 does not mean, person) ; it is also true, that many well meaning 
individuals have been misled by it in regard to their conceptions 
respecting the Deity, and that those who reject the doctrine of the 
Trinity, have made great use of this word in order to render the 
sentiments of Trinitarians obnoxious: so that one might almost 
wish the word had never been introduced into ecclesiastical usage. 
But when the matter is examined to the bottom, it will be found 
that objections of a similar nature might be urged against the ap- 
plication of any anthropopathic expressions to God. The simple 
and the untaught may be easily misied by them; and often are so. 
How many, for example, believe that God is really angry, repents; 
etc. more humano, because such expressions are found in the Scrip- 
tures? Shall all such expressions be laid aside, because they are 
misunderstood or perverted ?. And if so, where shall we stop? for 
we have seen, that all Janguage which is used in order to describe 
God, must be taken, of course and by necessity, ina qualified sense. 
The abuse of a thing is no valid argument against the wse of it. 
Those then, who believe in the existence of a real distinction in 
the Godhead, in case they are careful to protest against the literal 
application of the word person to designate this, may still continue 
to employ the word if they think best ; for it is exceedingly difficult, 
(as all will confess who have thoroughly studied this subject), to 
exchange it for a better one, or for one that will so well correspond 
with the representations of the Bible in regard to such a distinc- 


‘sa 


Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 323 


tion. Certainly no term can be substituted for it, which will not, 
in like manner, be obnoxious to more or less objections. 

If those who reject all distinction in the Godhead, will perse- 
vere still in maintaining, that to say there are three persons in the 
Godhead, necessarily involves the doctrine of Tvritheism; and if 
they will thus continue, at all events, to explain the word person 


according to its literal and common meaning, and to charge upon 


those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity the absurd conse- 
quences derivable from this; then they may indeed display their 
strength of attachment to their own views, and perhaps their skill 
in logomachy ; but where is that candour and fairness toward those 
who differ from them, which becomes all who are seeking in earn- 
est to know the simple doctrines of the Scriptures ? 

Suppose now, when one says, God possesses knowledge, he should 
be asked in the tone of reproof, ‘What! Do you mean to assert 
that God has physical organs of perception ; that he studies; that 
he charges his memory with ideas ; that he compares; that he de- 
duces conclusions ; that he summons them up by the effort of re- 
collection when he needs them? Men do all this, who have knowl- 
edge; but can all this be predicated of God?’ Would any con- 
siderate man think these questions very reasonable ones ; or feel 
himself-compelled by them to abandon his assertion, ‘ that God has 
knowledge ?’ 

Apply, now,:the principle concerned in this case, to the idiom 
in question. The apostle John says, that the Logos was with God; 
was with him in the beginning ; and repeats this asseveration, John 
1: 1,2. Christ says of himself, that he was with the Father, and 
partook of his glory, before the world had an existence, John 17: 
5. In another place, John asserts that the Son was with the Fa- 
ther, 1 John 1: 2; and the Saviour speaks of the Father, as loving 
him before the foundation of the world, John 17: 24. He declares, 
that he came out from the Father, when he came into the world, 
John 16: 28. In accordance with this idiom, Paul says, that God 
created all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. 3: 9; and that he made the 
worlds by his Son, Heb. 1: 2. Now if such texts are to be consid- 
ered as altogether insulated, and the principles of analogy in other 
cases are not to be applied to the language which they exhibit, then 
the conclusion, that Christ or the Logos is a being wholly distinct 
from God the Father, is clear and inevitable. But are these texts 


324 Excursus I. Hes. 1:2. 


ference at all to others, which relate to the same connexion be- 
tween Father and Son? Certainly not, if we follow the analogy 
of exegesis in all other cases. When John says that the Logos was 
with God, he tells us, at the very same time, as if to guard us 
against erroneously concluding that he is a distinct and separate 
and different substance, that he was God. When the Saviour spake 
of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, 
he had just been addressing the Father as the only true God, John 
17: 5, 3; so that no one could rationally suppose him to assert the 
existence of more than one true God. If Paul tells us that God 
created all things by Jesus Christ, and that he-made the worlds by 
his Son, he also tells us, that Christ is God over all and blessed for- 
ever, Rom. 9:53; and that he is the eternal and immutable creator 
of the heavens and the earth, Heb. 1: 10—12. Christ tells us that 
he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, John 14:9; that he 
is in the Father, and the Father in him, 14: 105. and that all which 
the Father hath is his, 16: 15. Now whatever diversity between 
the Father and Son the first class of texts above quoted may seem 
to imply, it is plain that it is not of such a nature as to destroy the 
unity of the Godhead. Whatever the distinction in the Godhead 
may be, it is noé that which makes plurality ; it is not that which 
makes personality in a logical or merely human sense. But can 
we say what it is? Plainly not. <A positive description is no 
where given in Scripture ; and surely it would ill become us to pre- 
tend that we understand, without revelation, the uncreated sub-_ 
stance and modus existendi of the Godhead. All that we can un- 
derstand by such expressions as the Logos being with God, becom- 
ing flesh and dwelling among us, and God's making the worlds by 
him, is, that there is a distinction in the Godhead of some kind, 
which amounts to more than merely the different modes or ways 
in which the Divinity discloses himself to us. It is something 
which is not merely nominal or logical; which is not to be predi- 
cated merely of the external relations of the Godhead. It is some- 
thing which renders it possible to aflirm,-in some sense or other 
analogous to the usual meaning of the words, that the Son was with 
God, that God created the world by him, that he became incarnate, 
etc. ; all which cannot be predicated, in the same sense, of the Fa- 
ther. Yet all this must be true, in such a modified sense, as does 
not infringe on the real unity of God. 


Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 325 





Who, now, will undertake to decide what metaphysical distinc- 
tions or relations there may be, in the uncreated substance of the 
eternal God; and what are consistent, and what not consistent, 
with his unity? None, we may believe, but those who are either 
presumptuous, or destitute of cool and sober reflection. But al- 
though the nature of the distinction in the Godhead be truly be- 
yond the boundaries of human knowledge, (as plainly it is), yet the 
fact, that there is a distinction of some kind or other, may be re- 
vealed. Indeed that it is revealed, seems to be a necessary conse- 
quence of allowing the two classes of texts above quoted to be true, 
and to modify each other. On the one hand, distinction is not to 
be so held or asserted as to infringe upon unity ; and on the other, 
unity is not to be so held or asserted, as to preclude the possibility 
of any distinction. Who has found out the Almighty unto perfec- 
tion? Are not all analogies from created, finite, temporal objects, 
utterly incompetent to convey adequate ideas of the infinite and 
uncreated God? Must they not from their very nature be so? 
Yet men will insist on applying all the analogy, which language 
imports, to God, in the same way as tothemselves. We always con- 
ceive, for example, of different beings having a finite nature, as sep- 
arated by space, as existing in time, and as having their own pe- 
culiar properties. When therefore we read of the Logos being 
with God, we very easily associate with this expression the analo- 
gy of one human being in company with another, or of some creat- 
ed thing associated with another that is a separate one. ‘Then we 
are ready to ask, How can the Logos be God? One cannot, in- 
deed, shew that he is so, if we will insist that all language is to be 
applied to him, sinply according to the common application of it to 
human objects. But is such an application to be made? Can it 
be? John says, he is God; and Paul says, he is God over all. 
Then human language, of course, can only approximate to a de- 
scription of him; the literal and full application of it, in designat- 
ing his relations to the Godhead, is out of all question. Only very 
inadequate views of this subject, or the spirit of party, or that of 
disputation, can maintain the propriety of such an application. 

We may come then to the conclusion, that when the apostle 
Paul asserts that God made the worlds by his Son, there is nothing 
in reality more difficult in this expression, than there is in those 
expressions which are found in the gospel and first epistle of John. 


- 


326 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 


Whatever may be the economy of the Godhead to which Paul re- 
fers, it is not one which denies, or virtually, takes away, either the 
unity of the same, or the supreme creatorship (so to speak) of the 
Son ; for this he most fully asserts, in Heb. 1: L1O—12. 

We have seen, by the passages above cited, that the apostles, 
John and Paul, accord in their views both with respect to the dis- 
tinction and the unity of the Godhead, and to the divinity of the 
Saviour. As they held these truths in such a manner that they 
harmonized with each other, so ought we to do; and consequently 
we should not give such an explanation to the one, as to destroy 
the other. In a particular manner, we ought to be guarded against 
making any assertions or definitions which are built on the as- 
sumption, that we know in what the distinctions of the Godhead 
consist. Some of the efforts of the school-divines, on this awful 
subject, are not only contradictory to each other, but their views 
are inconsistent with the true nature of a divine and self-existent 
Creator, as well as repulsive to the feelings of a cautious, impartial 
inquirer, who seeks after ideas of things, and not after mere words. 

The suggestions now made, respecting the necessity of feeling 
that all our language when applied to describe the ‘Deity must be 
restricted to a modificd sense, are strengthened, by an examination 
of the descriptions in general of God, as given in the Bible by the 
sacred writers. ‘They represent him, for example, as angry; as 
repenting ; as being grieved at the heart; as laughing at the efforts 
of the wicked; as mocking at their calamities; as rejoicing ; as 
weeping ; as avenging himself; as possessing eyes, hands, feet and 
all the parts of the human body; as descending and conversing 
with men; as appearing to Abraham, Moses, and many others ; 
as ascending; as riding’ in the whirlwind and the storm ; as walk- 
ing on the sea; as shooting with a bow and arrows; as whetting 
his glittering sword, and bathing it in blood ; as clothed with the 
habiliments of a warrior, or in those of royal. magnificence; in a 
word, as possessed of all the sympathies, and exhibiting all the 
phenomena, of a man. ‘The most unpractised reader of the Bible 
knows this is true, and that more or less of it is to be found on 
nearly every page of it. Yet who, that has any rational views of 
the true spiritual nature of God, ever supposes that any part of all 
this language is to be applied merely in its primary and literal sense 
to God? Yet, in every case of this nature, there is some real 





Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 327 


meaning in the language employed by the sacred writers. Ther 
is some point of analogy, between the literal meaning of the lan- 
guage as applied to men, and the qualified meaning of it as applied 
to God. When God is said to repent, the meaning is, that he acts 
in a manner analogous to that in which men act when they repent, 
i.e. he changes the course which he was pursuing. When God 
is said to whet his glittering sword, to bend his bow, and to take 
hold on vengeance, then he does that which is like what men do to 
their enemies, i.e. he punishes, he inflicts distress, he makes retri- 
bution for crimes. In all these and such like cases, the,manner in 
which the divine Being acts is not intended to be described ; but 
the fact that he does act, is what is asserted by the use of such 
language as has just been mentioned. 

No one can justly say, then, that there is no real meaning in 
such language when applied to God, unless it is taken in its prima- 
ry and literal sense. Such an affirmation would betray profound 
ignorance of the nature of language, as used in a qualified sense, 
and also of the true character of God. For if all such language 
respecting him, is indeed to be literally construed, then have the 
Scriptures east no additional light on the spiritual nature of God, 
and he is still to be regarded, as the heathen represented him, viz. 
as one altogether like ourselves. 

If it should be thought, that the class of expressions which are 
mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, are essentially differ- 
ent from those before considered, viz. such as Ged knows, God is 
mighty, etc.; an examination of the whole matter will convince 
any one of his mistake. It is true, that the former class of expres- 
sions are more obviously figurative. We at once perceive, that, as 
God is not flesh and blood, they cannot be literally applied to him ; 
i. e. we abstract from these expressions, whatever pertains to modus, 
whatever is borrowed from our earthly material structure. But is 
it not equally true, that whatever pertains to modus is, in the other 
case, to be in the same manner abstracted? For example, when 
God is said to know, does it any more imply the human modus of 
knowing, than it implies the human modus of acting, when he is 
said to lift up his arm in order to smite an offender. Most clearly 
not. The truth is, that, when sifted to the bottom, it will be found 
there is no essential difference as to the qualified nature of the lan- 
guage in both cases. In both, you abstract the modus, before you 





328 Excursus [. Hes. 1: 2. 





apply it toGod. In the one case, indeed, the metaphor is taken 
from our corporeal parts ; in the other, from our ‘mental powers ; 
but this makes no difference in respect to the thing itself, except 
that in the former case the language is more obviously and _strik- 
ingly to be qualified, than in the latter. 

If, then, such expressions as those which have been considered, 
and all others which designate the natural or moral attributes of 
God, are, and must be, understood in a modified sense ; then why 
is not the assertion that the Logos was with God, to be understood 
in a similar way 7?» The manner in which one created substance, 
as contemplated by us, is with another, can surely afford no perfect 
analogy to explain the manner, in which the self-existent, the uncre- 
ated Logos is with God. And yet the most specious of all the ob- 
jections to the true divinity of the Logos, are grounded on the full 
and /iteral application to him of such language. 

One word, with respect to the wnity itself of the Godhead. Is 
not this term, as well as all the others applied to the Divinity, to 
be taken in a modified sense? If any one will, for a moment, put 
aside the veil of words, and come to the simple contemplation of 
things, he will probably find himself much less able to tell what 
unity in the Godhead is, than he suspected. In the substances 
around us, proximity of parts united by some common influence, 
or subserviency to some common purpose, is essential to our idea 
of unity. A tree is one, because its several parts are intimately 
connected, are under an influence common to all, and are subser- 
vient to a common purpose, i.e. of praducing fruit, or foliage. 
Other trees, indeed, of the like kind, are under the like influence, 
and subserve the like purpose ; but the want of an intimate prox- 
imity of parts to the treeé in question, is the ground why they are 
not one with it. One man, in distinction from many, consists of 
a corporeal frame thus intimately connected, and animated by an 
iMtelligent spirit. Every thing that has material parts is nwmerical- 
ly one, only by an intimate conjunction of those parts. 

But when we apply the term unity to spirit, and ask, What is 
that in which the unity of spirit consists? it will be found more 
easy to ask, than to answer the question. A spirit we do not sup- 
pose to have parts ; certainly not, in such a sense as matter has, 
i.e. it is not divisible. God has no parts; he is a spirit. Proximi- 
ty of parts, then, does not constitute his unity. Nor have we, nor 


Excursus I. Hes. !: 2. 329 





ean we have, any proof that homogeneousness or simplicity of es- 
sence or substance, constitutes his unity. For, in the first place, 
we have no distinct idea of what the essence or substance, (if I may 
be allowed the expression), of the Godhead consists; and, of course, 
we cannot predicate physical homogeneousness or simplicity of ' 
that, respecting which we have no distinct idea. In the second 
place, as the most insignificant portion of matter has never yet, so 
far as we know, received an ultimate analysis from the highest ef- 
forts of chemical philosophy, so that any one can venture to affirm 
what its simple substance is, and confidently declare that it is ho- 
mogeneous, and one only in regard to its component elements; will 
any one venture to say, that he has analyzed the divine substance, 
(I speak it with reverence), so as to be able with certainty to pre- 
dicate physical homogeneous simplicity and unity, of the elements 
which compose it? How is it possible for us to make affirmations 
about the nature of that. substance, of which, by our own confes- 
sion, we are altogether ignorant? A man who at the present day 
should do thus, in any other science than that of theology, would 
be regarded as a mere visionary, or as a bigoted enthusiast for the 
party to which he belonged. 

The qualities, then, of the substance or essence of the Godhead, 
or (to speak in other terms) the physical or metaphysical nature 
of the Deity, is that of which we are profoundly ignorant. We 
know there is one omnipotence, one omniscience ; one Creator 
and governor of the universe ; but do we know the internal rela- 
tions and modifications of his substance? Confessedly not. How 
then can we with propriety reject the testimony of revelation, that 
the Logos is God, because of objections which our philosophy de- 
duced from a priori reasoning may raise, in respect to the unity of 
the divine substance ; all of which objections, too, are deduced 
from analogies that are taken merely from material and corporeal 
things? Truly, if the nature of these objections be examined, and 
the whole matter sifted to the bottom, by putting mere words aside 
for a while, and Jooking at things, it will be found, that we have 
less reason to confide in such objections, than some are ready to 
imagine. 

The Christian, who holds that the Logos is truly divine, (and 
of course that he is self existent, eternal, and independent), holds 
to what Paul and John seem very plainly to assert; and he, who 

VOL. II. 42 


330 Excursus [. Hes. 1: 2. 


ee — $$ 


admits that there is a distinction in the Godhead, (the nature of 
which is not developed, but which is implied in such expressions 
as those in Heb. 1: 2. John 1: 1, 2), stands on Scriptural ground, 
and on that too which is proof against all assault. For how can 
it be proved, that there is not a distinction in the Godhead, the 
nature of which we confessedly do not understand? If it be ask- 
ed, How can it be proved there is one? The answer is, By a re- 
velation. If such a revelation has been made, (and the texts cited 
above, not to mention others, seem plainly to imply it), then we 
are either bound to receive it, or to reject the authority of the sa- 
cred writers. Consistency must oblige us directly and fully to do 
the one, or the other. 

As for all the illustrations attempted by divines, ancient and 
modern, of the physical nature of the distinctions in the Godhead, 
drawn from finite, material, created objects, the bare mention of 
them is enough to shew, that they must be imminently exposed to 
error. Who can draw any perfect analogies between created and 
uncreated beings, in regard to their physical nature and properties ? 
And all the terms, and names, and dogmas, which have resulted 
merely from such comparisons, may be rejected in a mass, salvd 
Side et salvd ecclesia; and they ought to be rejected, if we would 
not expose the awful mystery of the doctrine in question to doubts, 
if not to rejection, by men who are not influenced in their opin- 
ions by tradition, nor by the authority of the schools. When the 
simple Biblical view of this subject is embraced, and the simple 
position of the sacred writers maintained, Without adding to it any 
explanations or definitions merely of our own invention, then may 
more unity of opinion on this subject, be expected among professed 
Christians ; and then will truth be less exposed to assault, from 
those who reject it. 

We come, then, at the close of this protracted discussion, to the 
conclusion, that language, like that in Heb. 1: 2, is subject to such 
modifications as other parts of the Scriptures and the nature of 
the case demand. In other words, we. can rationally apply it to 
God and to Christ, only in a qvatfied sense ; just as all other lan- 
guage must be applied to them, most obviously, in a qualified sense. 
Whatever depends on modus, must be abstracted. Facts are aim- 
ed at, by the sacred writers, not the modus of them. 

The expression in our text, therefore, according to every just law 





Excoursus I. Hes. 1: 2. gol 





of exegesis, must be so taken, as to accord with other assertions of 
the apostle and other inspired writers. But these do not permit 
us to attribute the act of creating to any but God himself, i.e. the 
supreme God. ‘To this act, the ultimate appeal is’ made by the 
sacred authors, in order to distinguish the supreme God from all 
that is called God, in heaven or on earth; see Rom, {: 20. Ps, 19: 
1. Acts 14: 15. Is. 40: 25, 26. 42: 5—8. 43: 15, 44:24. 45: 18. 
46: 9. 48: 12, 13; etc. Now is it possible for the human mind, to 
appeal to any decisive evidence of supreme Divinity, unless the act 
of creation be such? The Deity can be known, at all, only by the 
developement of his attributes ; and, no developement ever made, 
or (so far as we can see) none which can be made, is so highly 
and decisively characteristic of ‘ eternal power and Godhead,” as 
the act of creation. So thought Paul, Rom. 1: 20; and_ so, until 
the whole structure of my mind is changed, must I think. 

The Being then who created the world, is God to me; and 
from the nature of my moral and mental constitution, he must be so. 
This is a point that admits of no explaining away. If, therefore, 
Christ created the world, he must be, what John asserts him to be, 
GOD; and what Paul asserts him to be, GOD OVER ALL. But in 
what sense God can be said to have created the world by Christ, 
i. e. what is the exact meaning of a phrase, which refers to an in- 
ternal distinction, (as it would seem), inthe divine nature, is beyond 
the reach of our conception, as to modus. _ Enough, that it has 
matter of fact for its ground, viz. that the Logos was truly Creator. 
Enough that creatorship is so spoken of in the Bible, that we are 
not at liberty to predicate it of any dependent being. This point 
fixed, (and if it be not, we have no decisive evidence on which we 
can rely, that Jehovah is God), the sense of Heb. 1: 2, and of other 
like passages, is to be understood in a qualified way, so as not to 
gainsay what is plain and certain. This is as much ascan be said, 
with safety ; for the subject, to which such passages refer, is plain- 
ly one that, in most respects, is beyond the boundaries of human 
knowledge. 

That the subject is not without difficulties, even in its Scriptu- 
ral position, is what every candid and unprejudiced man will be 
very ready to confess., But it is a noble remark of Garve, (on Ci- 
cero de Offic, Lib. I. p. 70), “‘ The better part of men do not, be- 
cause they may discover a few difficulties which they cannot solve, 


332 Excursus JI. Hes. 1: 2. 


regard the whole system of acknowledged truth as uncertain. 
They can be aware that there is some darkness mingled with light 
in their knowledge, without being terrified by the one, or blinded 
by the other.” 

The effort to explain every thing, to define every thing, has led 
to the unhappy consequence of introducing scholastic phraseology 
and definitions, in respect to every thing about the doctrine of the 
Trinity. This not only bewilders many, but makes others believe 
that they have a knowledge of things, because they can use abun- 
dance of technical words; while the opposition of another class, 
who can detect the inconsistency and emptiness of these terms, is 
excited against the whole doctrine. The day, however, is coming, if 
not already arrived, when mere names will be regarded by the church 
as of little worth, provided they do not convey intelligible ideas. 
For the good of the church, also, it may be hoped, that the time is 
very near, when men will learn to stop, in making their inquiries, 
WITHIN the boundaries of human knowledge, and neither to assert 
nor deny that, about which they know nothing and can know noth- 
ing. Well was it said by a very sensible writer, ‘‘ He who will not 
undertake to explain what is incomprehensible, but will seek to_ 
know where the boundaries of this begin, and simply acknowledge 
them when and where he finds them ;—he does most to promote 
the genuine knowledge of truth by man.’’* 


—<——— 


e 


EXCURSUS II. 


3 i] tz ‘ ~ 
Heb. 1:2. 40 ov xai tovs aiovas é0iNnoe. 


It has been argued, that the expression, God made the worlds 
by his Son, necessarily contains an implication of eternal Sonship, 
or eternal generation; in other words, that Christ is the Son of 
God in his divine nature, and not simply considered as mediator. 
*“‘ How,” it is asked, ‘could God make the worlds by his Son, if 
he had no Son until four thousand years after the world was creat- 


ed?” ‘The answer, however, is easy. How could ‘ God create all 
— — — es 


* Jacobi, Gotting. Recens. St. 197. anno 1785. 





Excursus Il. Hep. 1: 2. gaa 





things by Jesus Christ?” And _ yet the apostle asserts that he did, 
in Eph. 3: 9.. Is not Jesus Christ the appropriate name of the in- 
carnate Logos? Of the Saviour as possessing our nature? How 
then could the world have been created by him? The answer is, 
that in both cases, and in all similar cases, the words which de- 
scribe the person are used as proper names, and thus designate the 
whole person, in whatever relation he is considered. The Logos, 
who created the world, was united with the human nature of Je- 
sus—with the human nature of the Son of God, i.e. the Messiah. 
And as the names Jesus Christ and Son of God, are evidently 
terms used to describe the complex person of the Saviour ; so it is 
altogether accordant with the usages of language to say, that ‘ God 
created the world by Jesus Christ,’ or ‘ by his Son ;’? meaning, in 
either case, by the Logos or higher nature united to Christ or the 
Son. So we say, Abraham is dead, meaning, that part of him 
which is mortal is dead; Abraham is alive, meaning, that part 
which is immortal lives. We say too, Abraham was born in Ur 
of Chaldea; yet he did not receive this name, until ninety nine 
years after his birth there, for before this last period, he was called 
Abram, not Abraham, Gen. 17: 1, 5. This is analogical with 
saying, God made the worlds by his Son; although the Logos did 
not receive the name Son, (except by prophetic anticipation), until 
he appeared in the flesh. Nothing is more common than to em- 
ploy proper names, when once acquired, in order to designate the 
whole person, in all its different stages or modes of existence, with- 
out any reference to the time or manner of acquiring the proper 
name. At all events, if to say, that God made the worlds by his 
Son, necessarily proves that the Logos was then a Son when he 
made the worlds; the same reasoning will of course prove, that he 
was then Jesus and Christ also, i. e. a complex person having a hu- 
man nature, because it is said, God created all things by Jesus 
Christ. 

In the same manner, the expression of our Saviour, What if ye 
should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6: 
62, would prove, if the reasoning on which we are animadverting 
be correct, that the son or MAN existed in heaven before he dwelt 
among men, 1. e. that the Word made flesh did not assume this in- 
carnate condition at the birth of Jesus, but possessed such a nature 
before, viz. while in the heavenly world. Now as neither fact jus- 


334 Excursus II]. Hes. 1: 3. 


tifies such a supposition nor the usages of language demand it, so 
the doctrine of eternal Sonship can never be built upon a principle 
of reasoning, which stands upon such a very insufficient basis. 








EXCURSUS IIL. 


Heb. 1: 3. “Oc ov anavyasua mo dokns xal yaoaxme 


~ c ' > ~ 
HS VILOOTQAOEDS AUTOV. 


What can be plainer, than that the description, in Heb. 1: 3, 
necessarily applies to the zncarnate Logos, to the Son of God as 
disclosing, in our nature, the Father to the world of mankind? A 
multitude of analogous texts might easily be appealed to; but those 
quoted in the commentary are sufficient. It is plainly the mani- 
festation of God which the Son makes, that occasions the Son’s be- 
ing described as anavyacua and yaoaxtyg ; both of which imply, 
of course, what is visible and perceptible. But the Logos before 
the incarnation, while simply divine, was neither visible nor per- 
ceptible. Nor can we, with any propriety of language, speak of 
him in that state, in which he was simply the invisible God, as_be- 
ing only the image of God, or only the radiance of his splendour, 
or merely the likeness of his substance. ‘Ynooraorg avrov, his sub- 
stance, I regard as equivalent to him, himself as he really is; for 
this would seem to be the meaning of subsfance, in the case before 
us, and not the designation of the physical or metaphysical nature 
of the divine substance, which neither Christ nor any of the sacred 
writers have represented to us, and of which, the Logos, is not an 
image, since he is ONE with the Father. 

Others understand aai'yaoue in the sense of image, exact re- 
semblance, and dvg« as meaning, divine majesty; thus making 
anavycouc OvENS and yaouxtng Hg UmoOraoEMg avTOU synony- 
mous. ‘They appeal, by way of supporting this, to an expression 
in Philo, who calls the sanctuary of the temple ovov anariyaoua 
TOV ayloy “al Miunuc TOU HozyErumoV, an image (as they translate 
it) of the [heavenly] sanctuary, and a resemblance of the archetype. 
But here enavyaoua may well be rendered radiance, i.e. light 


Excorsus III. Hes. 1: 3. 335 





emanated from the heavenly sanctuary, in reference to the heaven- 
ly splendour which appeared in the most holy place. Philo de 
Plantat. Noe, L. II: p. 221. edit. Francofurt. The book of Wis- 
dom calls wisdom, anavyuoug gwros aidiov, ual sixove tng aya- 
Bornros avrov, the radiance of eternal light, and the image of 
[God’s] goodness ; which, although cited by them, is still less to 
the purpose of defending their opinion. 

Ancient and modern commentators, who have constru ed these 
phrases as having respect to the divine nature and condition of the 
Son, have understood them as asserting an exact likeness between 
the Father and the Son, first in regard to attributes (doa), and 
then in regard to substance or essence (umooraocs). I must, how- 
ever, regard the phrase in question, as of the same nature, in res- 
pect to meaning, with the texts to which they have been compared 
in the commentary ; and we may surely find, in the analogy of the 


Scripture and in the nature of the imagery, reason to justify this 


view of them. But as the explanation referred to has been so long 
insisted on, and so often repeated, it deserves at least some particu- 
lar attention.- 

Theodoret ‘has best exhibited the mode of argument, which is 
used to defend the sentiment in question. ‘“ Splendour (omatyao- 
fa),” says he, “comes from fire. It has fire as its cause, but is 
inseparable from the fire; for fire and splendour proceed from the 
same source. If now it is possible, in respect to objects of sense, 
that one thing should be derived from another, and yet co-exist 
with that from which it is derived, you cannot doubt that God the 
Logos, the only begotten Son of God, is begotten as a Son, and yet 
that he co-exists with him who begat him as Logos, which [Logos] 
is anavyaoua dofysg. For the glory and the splendour have one 
common source. But the glory aleays existed ; consequently the 
splendour. Fire and splendour are of the same nature; then the 
Son is of the same nature with the Father. Moreover, since the 
image of splendour abundantly shews the co-eternal and co-essen- 
tial nature [of the Son with the Father], it has afforded occasion 
for the blasphemies of those who labour under the disease of Sa- 
bellius and Photinus. By another image, therefore, he [the apostle] 
refutes this blasphemy, since splendour does not exist in and of it- 
self; for he adds, yaguxrno 1g UnoGtacEWs aro, x.t.4.” The- 
od. Comm. on Heb. 1: 3. : 


@ 
336 Excursus III. Hes. 1: 3. 


In a similar manner, Chrysostom and Theophylact argue, call- 
ing the Son gwe & gwrog. So the Nicene Fathers say, ‘the Son 
is pos é* purros, xai Yeog é*x Yeov. All these plainly borrow their 
phraseology from the expression, anatyaouc tug dokng avrou, 
which is referred by them to the divine nature of Christ. 

But how incompetent any material objects are, to afford just 
analogies of the modus existendi of a divine and uncreated Nature, 
need not be again insisted on in this place. We might well ask, 
Is not the sun the cause of light? * And does not the cause exist 
before the effect? Again; Is light in all respects homoousian with 
the source of light, the luminary from which it springs? Is the 
radiance of the sun, the same thing as the sun itself ? 

Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Nyssen, moreover, as- 
sert, that the expression, yagaxrng 17$ UmoGTaOEWS avTOU, NeCces- 
sarily implies an entire resemblance, in all respects, of the Son to 
the Father, with the exception of separate hypostasis ; and this 
they maintain must be so, because the impression made by a stamp 
or die is exactly like the stamp or die itself. But it may be asked, 
first, Whether the writer himself of our epistle makes, as these 
commentators do, the exception of hypostasts from the complete- 
ness of the resemblance asserted? Next, whether an impression 
is indeed, in all respects, like the die which made it? For exam- 
ple ; is the impression solid, or of the same material with the stamp ; 
or does it possess the same physical attributes; or is it coeval 
with it? Such assertions, therefore, though they may be oratori- 
cal enough, and please the fancy of hearers*or readers, vanish away * 
before the tribunal of examination, and serve only to show the in- 
competence of any earthly analogies to give a true representation 
of the modus existendi, or of the physical substance of the Godhead. 
‘They also shew the imprudence, nay, the. danger, of employing 
such figures, in regard to a subject of so awful a nature. 

There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully 
examines, that the Nicene fathers and the Greek commentators, 
one and all, held that Christ, as to his divine nature, was derived 
from the Father. So the Nicene creed, @z0¢ é« You, pas éx gu- 
zog. So Chrysostom, commenting on the phrase in Heb. 1: 13, 
norvou éx Oe&tay mov, afirms, that “the apostle says this for no 
other reason, than that you may not suppose the Son to be evagyov 
“ai aveittoy,” i.e. sine principio et sine causd; most evidently in 


. cod 
Excursus IV. Hep. 1: 3. 334% 





‘h very spirit of the Nicene creed. Yet we may ask the question, 
‘ve cannot help asking it, Is then the Son, who is God over all and 
blessed forever—is he, in his pivine nature, derived and dependent ? 
Has he, as very God, an airia and an aoyi? And is it possible 
for us, to make the idea of true and proper divinity harmonize with 
that of derivation, and consequent dependence? No; it is not. 
The spiritual views of the nature of God, which are now generally 
entertained by enlightened men, forbid this; in fact, they render 
it absolutely impossible. But not so, in the days of the Nicene 
council, and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in 
the divine nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain; but 
that their views of what is necessary to constitute a rational and 
defensible idea of a nature truly divine, were correct, is what no 
one, I think, who has read their writings and judged for himself, 
will now venture to maintain. Their views of the divine nature, 
were built on the metaphysical philosophy of their day : but we are 
not bound to admit this philosophy as correct ; nor is it indeed 
possible, now, for our minds to admit it. 





EXCURSUS IV. 


Heb. 1: 3. “Exaduev éy desk me meyadoovrns. 


To sit at the right hand of one on a throne, appears to have 
two meanings, both in profane and sacred usage. 

1. It denotes honour, friendship, peculiar approbation, a reward 
bestowed on any one. Thus Solomon, when on his throne, direct- 
ed Bathsheba his mother to sit at his right hand, 1 K. 2: 19. 
Thus, in Ps. 45: 9, the queen is represented as taking her place at 
the right hand of the king her husband. The mother of James 
and John requests of Jesus, that her two sons may sit, one on his 
right hand and the other on his left, during his reign, (éy 7H Bao 
gig. cov, Matt. 20: 20—23, comp. Mark 10: 35--40), i. e. that they 
may occupy the highest places of honour under him as king. In 

VOL. II. 43 


R 
338 Excursus IV. Hes. 1: 3. . 








other passages, Christ promises his disciples that they shall have 
thrones, in the world of glory, Matt. 19:28; nay, that they shall _ 
sit down with him, on his throne, even as he sits down with his 
Father on his throne, Rev. 3; 21. So Christians are said to have 
a kingdom given to them, Rey. 1: 6; they are a kingly priesthood, 
1 Pet. 2: 9; they reign with Christ, or in life, 2 Tim. 2: 12. Rom, 
5: 17. James 2: 5. Matt. 25: 34. Rev. 5: 10. In all these and the 
like cases, honour, reward, an exalted state of happiness or glory, 
is represented by such expressions; but not actual participation in 
the supreme government of the universe. 

2. To sit at the right hand of one enthroned, or to sit on a 
throne with one, also denotes participation of command, authority, 
or dignity. So the heathen often employed the phrase; e. g. Pin- 
dar represents Minerva as dsEcay xura yecoa tov nargog xusbo- 
uévyy, sitting at the right hand of her father [Jove]; which Ho- 
race explains by her occupying proximos Jovi honores. Pind. Fragm. 
p- 55. ed, Schneider. Hor. Od. [. 12, 19. So Callimachus says of 
Apollo, that ‘“ he will honour the choir who shall sing what is pleas- 
ant to him; since he is able to do this, émet Aut’ dsév0¢ Hora, be- 
cause he sits at the right hand of Jove, Hymn. in Apoll. v. 28. 
29.” ‘The Greeks called him, who participated with another in 
his kingly authority, ovvedgos, magedgos, ovvPgovog; although 
they also applied these terms to any member of a council, or of a 
deliberative judicial assembly. In the New Testament, when 
Christ is represented as sitting at the right hand of divine. majesty 
Heb. 1: 3, or at the right hand of God Heb. 10: 12, or at the right, 
of the throne of God Heb. 12: 2, participation in supreme domin- 
ion is most clearly meant, | Comp Acts 2: 32—36. 1 Pet. 3: 22. 
Rom. 8: 34.. Mark 16:19. Phil. 2: 6—11. Eph. 1: 20—23. At 
the same time, the comparison of these passages will shew most 
clearly, that Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God, means, 
his being seated on thé mediatorial throne, as the result and reward 
of his sufferings, (see particularly Phil. 2: 6--11, and comp. Heb. 
12: 2) ; and that the phrase in question never means, the original 
dominion which Christ as Logos or ‘God possesses. The sacred 
writers never speak respecting the Logos, considered simply in his 
divine nature, as being seated at the right hand of God; but only 
of the Logos incarnate, or the Mediator, as being seated there. 
So in our text, it is after the expiation made by the Son of God, 


la ‘ Excursus V. Hes. 1: 5. 339 





that he is represented as seating himself at the right hand of the 
divine majesty. And that | apie dominion, is not to be 
_ considered simply as the dominion of the divine nature of Christ 
as such, is plain from the fact, that when the mediatorial office is 
fulfilled, the kingdom of the mediator as such is to cease; 1 Cor. 
15: 23—28. Moreover, that the phrase, to sit at the right hand of 
God, or of the throne of God, does not of itself mean, original di- 
vine dominion, is clear, from the fact, that Christ assures his 
faithful disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even 
as he has sat down with the Father on his throne, Rev. 3: 2%. It 
is exaltation, then, in consequence of obedience and sufferings, 
which is designated by the phrase in question. See an excellent 
dissertation De Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei sedente, by the venerable 
Dr. Knapp of Halle, (wvv év ayiovg), in Knappii Scripta varii Argu- 
menti. Hal. 1824. 





EXCURSUS V. 


> \ , > ~ > ‘ , 
Heb. 1: 5. Eyo &ouce avi ec naréoa, xal autos éo- 


> / 
TaL Moe eg VOY. Veg 


A difficulty still remains, in regard to the application of 2 Sam. 
7: 14 to Christ. In the very same verse, which contains the quo- 
tation made by the apostle, is contained the following expression ; 
“Tf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, 
and with the stripes of the children of men ;’’ i. e. I will inflict such 
punishment, as men receive on account of transgression. Can it 
well be said respecting the Son of God, “If he commit iniquity, 
etc. ?”’ Where can any analogy in Scripture be found, of such lan- 
guage applied to him? The answer must be, No where. But 
by a nearer inspection of the whole prophecy, and by comparing 
it with other predictions of a similar nature, perhaps the difficulty 
presented may be diminished, if not removed. What hinders, that 


340 Excursus V, Hes. 1: 5. ® 





God should promise both temporal and spiritual blessings to David, 
in consideration of his piety? See 2 Sam. 7: 1—13. Why could 
he not promise him, that he should have successors on the throne, 
who should, like other men, fall into sin, and be chastened for it ? 
And yet, that among those kings who should descend from him, 
there should be one, who was the Son of God in a peculiar sense, 
who was destined to a dignity—to a throne——of a most exalted na- 
ture? Such at least seems to be the exposition by the author of 
the eighty ninth Psalm, vs. 29—37. 
Compare this now with the promises made to Abraham, Gen. 
12; 1—8. 15: 1—6. 17: 1—8. These passages certainly contain 
assurances, that Abraham should have a literal, numerous off- 
spring, and that they should inherit the land of Canaan; see Gen. 
15: 7--18. Yet they also contain assurances of a seed, in whom 
all nations should be blessed, Gal. 3: 14—17; and of a seed who 
should be the heirs of Abraham’s faith, i. e. resemble him in regard 
to faith or belief, Gal. 3: 6—8. It may be difficult for us to ascer- 
tain, in some cases, where the temporal promise ends, and the 
spiritual one begins ; and so vice versd; because both are couched, 
as usual, in similar language. But this does not shew that there is 
any absurdity, or any improbability, in the supposition that God 
may have promised, and that he has promised, blessings both spir- 
itual and temporal, at the same time. Did he not engage that.Da- 
vid should have successors on his earthly throne ; and also that he 
should have a Son who would sit on a spiritual throne, and have a 
kingdom of which David’s own was but a mere type? Luke 1:32,. 
33. Rom. 1: 3, 4. Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished, if 
not removed. The “ iniquity committed” is predicated of that part 
of David’s seed, who might commit it, i. e. his successors on the 
national throne ; while the more exalted condition, predicated of 
his successor, belongs to him to whom was given a kingdom over 
all. ‘ 
If you say, ‘ Thus interpreted, the prophecy seems to be in a 
great measure general, and difficult to be definitely interpreted ;’ 
the answer is, So it was designed to be: The general idea only 
was intended to be communicated, of some future most distinguish- 
ed progeny of David. Very much of our difficulty in interpreting 
most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, arises from aiming to 
make them more specific and definite, than they were originally in- 


v Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. 341 





tended to be. When we shall have thoroughly learned, that “the 
Law made nothing perfect,” we shall find less difficulty in the in- 
terpretation both of the Old and New Testament. 


EXCURSUS VI. 


La > ~ r ” 
Heb. 1: 6. Kal ngoozvyncaimsay avia neévies eyyedor 
eov. 


As nearly all the commentators on our epistle have admitted, 
that the one or the other of these passages is actually quoted by the 
apostle, the difficulties to which such a supposition is exposed, 
should be stated. 

In Deut. 32: 43 [Sept.], the very words are found, which ap- 
pear in our text. But (1) They are found only in the Septuagint 
version ; the Hebrew, and all the ancient versions, omitting them. 
(2) The copies of the Septuagint itself are not agreed respecting 
them. The Codex Alex. reads viol Mov instead of ayyehoe Oeov, 
and one Codex at Oxford omits the whole clause. (3) The subject 
connected with this command to the angels, (if we admit the clause 
in the Septuagint to be a part of the sacred text), has no relation 
to the Messiah. The context celebrates the victory over the ene- 
mies of Israel, which God will achieve. After saying, that “ his ar- 
rows should be drunk with blood, and that his sword should devour 
flesh, with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time 
when he begins to take vengeance on the enemy ;”” the Septuagint 
(not the Hebrew) immediately inserts, EVPOaVONRTE OVEAVOL cue. 
AUTO, nai MEDKUYNOATwWOAY avrM aavtes c&yyshoe Beod. This, 
in the place where it stands, must needs mean, ‘ Let the inhabitants 
of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the ene- 
emies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him.’ But 
the Messiah does not seem to be at all alluded to, any where in the 
context ; much less described as being introduced into the world. 
I should therefore think it very improbable, if the apostle meant to 
quote Scripture, that he meant to quote ¢his Scripture, on the pres- 


342 Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. 4 


ent occasion ; for we have no knowledge, (unless it be implied in 
our text), that the Jews of his time were wont to apply this passage ~ 
to the Messiah. Still, it is a possible case that he quoted the words 
of Deut. 32: 43, merely as fitted to express the idea which he in- 
tended to convey ; just as we now borrow Scripture language, eve- 
ry day, to convey our own ideas, without feeling it to be at all ne- 
cessary to prove, in every case, that the same meaning was origi- 
nally conveyed by the words which we employ, as we attach to 
them in our discourse. Such a use, it is well known, is not unfre- 
quently made of passages from the Old ‘Testament by the writers of 
the New; and such an one, Storr maintains, is here made by the 
apostle, of the words of the Septuagint in Deut. 32: 43. 

The probability, however, all things considered, is in favour of a 
quotation, (if it be necessary to suppose a quotation), from Ps. 97: 
7 (Sept. 96: 7); where the Sept. has, moooxuryjoare avr mavtEs 
ayyéhou avrov, as a translation of the Heb. p> poN—b>D IS“aINNwNA, 
worship him all ye Elohim. _ Here avzod, in the Septuagint, stands 
after &yyzhou, but in Heb. I: 6 it is Geov, and zai in our quotation 
is wanting in the Sept. But any one who has compared the quota- 
tions of the N. Test. from the Old, either with the Hebrew or Sep- 
tuagint, must have seen that very few of them are verbatim. The 
variation here of the quotation from the original, is so small, and so 
entirely unconcerned with the sense of the passage, that the discre- 
pancy will not be any hindrance at all to the supposition, that Ps. 
97: 7 may have been quoted. Yet the subject of this Psalm does 
not, at first view, seem to be the Messiah..-The universal reign of 
Jehovah, his victory over his enemies, the manifestation of his glo- 
ry ‘to all nations, and the confusion of idolaters, are celebrated in 
the context. The verse from which our quotation is made runs 
thus ; “* Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that 
boast themselves of their idols, rgooxuvjoare avt@ navres Hyyshot 
Seov, DASN~ED;” i.e. ‘let all created things, which are the ob- 
jects of worship, instead of receiving adoration, pay it to Jehovah. 
Jehovah alone is the proper object of religious homage.’ 

Yet it is certainly a possible case, that this very Psalm celebrates 
the coming and empire of Christ, who was, as Simeon says, Luke 
2:32, gag fg anoxaduwory 29vov, zal dokav Aaov Joana, (comp. 
Ps. 97: 6) ; and whose coming was to destroy idolatry, and fill the 


’ 


hearts of the righteous with gladness, Ps. 97: 11, 12. _ It must be 


: Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. “343 


admitted, however, that if the 97th Psalm was designed to be appli- 
ed to the Messiah, it is one of those which are much less definite 
and plain in regard to such an application, than several others. 
The Jews, as Kimchi asserts, were wont to apply all the Psalms, 
from Ps. xcr. to Ps. cr., to the Messiah. If such an explanation 
was current in the time of Paul, it would give additional force to_ 
the appeal here made. And even if Paul himself did not regard 
Ps. xcvit. as originally designed to be applied to the Messiah, he 
might still use the words of it as descriptive of a fact which took 
place, at the time of the Saviour’s birth. The Jewish Christians, 
whom he addressed, could not have been ignorant of what happen- 
ed in regard to the angels, at the time of this birth. Supposing, 
then, that the original Hebrew of the 97th Psalm only means, ‘ Wor- 
ship him all ye who are worshipped, [os>N-b>] ;’ and that the 
Seventy translated this as it now appears in their version ; why 
could not Paul make use of their words, to describe facts which 
happened in later times? If you say, ‘ This would be only to fos- 
ter an erroneous translation of the Hebrew by the Seventy, and an 
erroneous application of it by the Jews ;’ the answer is, The fact 
itself is not an error, viz. that the angels worshipped the Saviour. 
The words of Ps. 97: 7, thus applied, designate what is really true. 
If the Jews to whom they were originally addressed, were accus- 
tomed to apply them to the Messiah, then the use which the apostle 
makes of them would be the more impressive ; and impressive of 
an idea founded in reality, viz. that the Son of God was the object 
of angelic worship. 

That the apostle, however, designed any thing more, than mere- 
ly to use a phrase well known to the readers of the Septuagint ver- 
sion, borrowed from Ps. 97:7, and accommodated to express his 
own ideas, need not be supposed; and cannot, indeed, well be 
proved. But if any are not content with this, (which I should my- 
self prefer, provided we allow it to be an actual quotation) ; then it 
is certainly very possible to suppose, that the 97th Psalm relates 
to the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, and that the appeal to 
it for a proof passage relative to him, is strictly proper, and not dif- 
ficult to be understood. In either way, the difficulty which offers 
itself to the mind, on the first examination of the text, is greatly di- 
minished, if not wholly removed, so far as appeal by way of quota- 
tion is concerned. ° . 





344 Excursvus VI. Hes. 1: 6. 


t 





For my own part, Ido not regard it as necessary to suppose that 
the phrase in question is quoted at all.. Surely it is not improbable, — 
that the writer means only to say, ‘ The Father, who introduced the 
Son into the world, said, sgooxuynoarwoar x.t.4. The Christian 
Jews, who cannot be supposed to be ignorant of what had happen- 
ed at the time of the Saviour’s birth, could hardly doubt of the 
writer’s meaning. ‘Thus the difficulty of the text would be remov- 
ed. But if a quotation be insisted on; then, with Storr, I am in- 
clined, as before suggested, to regard it as simply using a Septua- 
gint phrase, in order to convey the apostle’s own ideas. Yet the 
exposition, which is founded on the application of the 97th Psalm to 
the Messiah, and which explains our text as the quotation of an ac- 
tual prophecy, is not impossible ; and perhaps not even improbable. 

One question, however, still remains. How could the Seventy, 
and Paul after them, translate p\7>N by angels? It is admitted, 
that the great body of lexicographers and critics, in modern times, 
reject the sense of the word here given. But usage, after all, pleads 
in favour of it. The Septuagint render bx (God) by ayyedos, in 
Job 20: 15; and on by ayyedos, in Ps. 8: 6. 97: (96:) 7. 137: 
1. Paul follows them, by quoting Ps. 8: 6 in Heb. 2: 7; and also 
by quoting Ps. 97: 7, in the verse before us, i. e. supposing that he 
does actually quote it. Is not this sufficient evidence that there 
was a usus loquendi among the Jews, which applied the word D> 
occasionally to designate angels? It is admitted, that kings and 
magistrates are called Elohim, because of their rank or dignity. Is 
there any thing improbable in the supposition, that angels may be 
also called p°4>N , who at present are elefated above men, Heb. 2: 
71° Facts, and not suppositions, are evidences of the usus loquen- 
di of the Jewish writers. ~ , or 


Excursus VII. Hes. 1:11, 12. 345 





EXCURSUS VII. 


Heb. 1:11,12. 2v xar aoxec, xvece, my yay &euedto- 
oac, xal éoya tov yeroov cou oly of ovgavol. Avtol 
anodooviae, ov Oe Ovamevers: wal navies wg iuoov 
nahowmdnocovic, nol woel negesodaaioy éiEecs autoVvs, 
nal addorynooviae ou dé 0 avis ei, xal ta &tH GOV oUx 


ExdAeiwover 


In regard to the body of the Psalm (Ps. cr.), from which this 
whole quotation is taken, the majority of late critics agree in the 
opinion, that it does not primarily relate to the Messiah, but to Je- 
hovah absolutely considered. It is, no doubt, one of those Psalms, 
the internal evidence of which does not so clearly and definitely de- 
termine the application of the whole composition, as does that of 
many others. Thus much, also, seems to be clear; there is nothing in 
the Psalm, which forbids the application of it to the Messiah. Nay, 
there are several passages in it, which apply to him in a more ap- 
posite way, than to any other personage. If we suppose the com- 
plaint (vs. 1—11) to be that of the church, previously to the ap- 
pearance of its Redeemer, then does the sequel well agree with the 
promised redemption. In particular, verses 15, 18, 20, 22, describe 
the propagation and prosperity of true religion among the heathen. 
But when was such a diffusion of the true knowledge and worship 
of God to take place? Under the Jewish dispensation, or under 
the Christian? Surely, under the latter only. Comp. too v. 20 
with Isaiah 61: 1, which the Saviour applies to himself, Luke 4: 17 
—21. Verses 23, 24 of Ps. cm., renew the complaint of the church; 
and vs. 25—28 contain the answer, viz. that the Redeemer is the 
Creator and immutable, and that the church shall be continued, and 
a godly seed be permanent. So I am inclined to explain the whole 
Psalm ; and so, at any rate, the writer of our epistle seems to have 
understood it. Certainly there is nothing that forbids such an ex- 
planation, when it is once admitted that the Messiah was at all the 
subject of prediction, in ancient times, and that some of the Psalms 
do actually contain such predictions. 

VOL. Il. 44 


346 Excursus VII. Hes. 1: 11, 12. 


But if any one prefers construing Psalm cm. as applicable 
merely to Jehovah, absolutely considered, then there is no serious 
difficulty with respect to our quotation. The application of the 
same words to the Son of God, which were originally spoken re- 
specting Jehovah, is equivalent to saying, ‘ What was affirmed by 
the Psalmist of Jehovah, may be as truly affirmed of the Son.’ As 
the writer applies the words in this manner, it shews that he con- 
sidered those whom he addressed as being accustomed to make 
such an application of them, and that they were willing to admit 
it; otherwise he could not have expected the argument to be ac- 
knowledged by them as a forcible one. 

Admitting now that the apostle has correctly applied this pas- 
sage to the Son, it follows that the Son possesses a nature truly di- 
vine. The act of creation is the highest evidence of such a nature, 
that is offered, or can be offered, to our minds; and the sacred 
writers appeal to itas such. See Rom. 1: 20. Ps. 19: 1. Acts 14: 
15. Is. 40: 25, 26. 42: 5—8. 43: 15. 44:24. 45:18. 46:9. 48: 
12, 13. The force of the proof in question is not altered, whether 
vou suppose the 102d Psalm originally to relate to the Messiah, or 
not. If it originally related to him, then the application is clear and 
unembarrassed. If it originally related to Jehovah, simply consid- 
ered, then the apostle asserts here, that what was said of Jehovah 
may also be applied, in the same manner, to the Son. Of course, 
the weight of the argument is the same in either case, as it respects 
the divine nature of Christ. Either would shew the opinion of the 
writer to be, that the Son is eternal, and the Creator of the uni- 
verse ; of course, that he is exalted beyon@ all measure above the 
angels, and is truly divine. For as the same writer says, He whe 
made all things, is God, Heb. 3: 4. 

We may observe, too, that this last argument is the climax of 
the whole, and completes the proof which the apostle adduces to 
shew the exalted dignity of the Son. He had intimated the same 
sentiment, at the commencement of his epistle, v. 2; but here he 
brings out into full light, the nature of his. views respecting this 
subject. Whatever then may be the economy, according to which 
God made all things by his Son, it is not of such a nature as to ex- 
clude supreme creatorship and eternal existence, as belonging to 
the Son; both of which are asserted to belong to him by the pas- 
sage before us. ; 


Excursvus VIII. Hes. 2: 2. 347 


— 





EXCURSUS VIII. 
Heb. 2:2. Ev yao o de ayyéhov Aadntels Aoyos. 


There are two methods of explaining this. (1) The apostle 
here speaks merely in the way of accommodation to the Jewish mode 
of representing this subject. ‘The Jews attributed the giving of the 
law to angels, as mediators or internuncii between Jehovah and 
them; and they were accustomed to make high claims, in respect 
to the dignity and superior excellency of their law, on this account. 
The apostle here adverts to their views of this subject ; and what 
he says amounts to this, ‘ If every transgression of the law, which 
you regard as given by the mediation of angels, was punished, etc.’ 
In like manner, the same apostle says to the Galatians, ‘* Who hath 
bewitched you?” without intending to teach us that he believed in 
the power of witchcraft. And so our Saviour speaks to the Jews, of 
‘the unclean spirit that goes out of a man, and walks through dry [de- 
sert] places, seeking rest and finding none, but afterwards it returns 
with seven other spirits, and repossesses the same man, Matt. 12: 
43.’ Now as this is not intended to teach us, that impure spirits 
actually wander about in deserts, etc., so we are not obliged to un- 
derstand the apostle as meaning any dliaal more by the expression 
in question, than a reference to the Jewish mode of speaking and 
thinking relative to the subject of angels. But 

(2) Another mode of explanation is, that the phrase contains a 
concession, on the part of the writer, of what was viewed by him to 
be matter of fact. This view I feel constrained to adopt, by a com- 
parison of similar passages. In Acts 7: 53, Stephen says to the 
Jews, “ye have received the law e¢ dvarayas ayyéhwv, by the 
disposition [order, arrangement] of angels ;” and Paul, speaking of 
the law, in Gal. 3: 19, says, that it was dvatayeis Ov ayyzhwv, ar- 
ranged [disposed, proposed] by angels. 

But here a difficulty is urged. God himself proclaimed the law 
to the Israelites,, Ex. 20: 1, 19, 22. Deut. 5: 4. How then can the 
law be said to be Aadn dels Ov ayyehwy? Different ways of avoid- 
ing and of answering this difficulty, have been adopted. Some 
have denied that 0 Adyog here means the law; and they interpret it 


348 Excursus VIII. Hes. 2: 2. 





as referring to the different messages, which in the Old Testament 
are said to have been delivered by angels. Others have made a 
distinction between what was said directly to Moses, by God him- 
self, and what was promulgated [dvaraysic, ei dvatayag], as they 
say, to the people at large, by angels. That the law of Moses, 
however, is meant, is plain from a comparison of Heb, 10: 28, 29 
and 12:25; as well as from the nature of the comparison here pro- 
posed, between the old dispensation and the new one. And that 
the tenuious distinction made, in the second case, is unnecessary, 
every one who reflects well on the usus loquendi of Scripture will 
concede. God is very often said to do that, which instruments un- 
der his direction, or under the general arrangements of his provi- 
dence accomplish. This idiom proceeds so far, that even evil is 
ascribed to him in this way by one phrase, which another passage 
shews to have been perpetrated by an inferior agent, E. g. 2 Sam. 
24: 7, it is said of Jehovah, no27 he moved [or excited] David to 
go and number Israel; which crime was followed by tremendous 
punishment. Yet in Chron. 21: 1, it is said of Satan, nox, he 
moved David to go and number Israel. So it is repeatedly said of 
Pharaoh, that he hardened his own heart, and that the Lord harden- 
ed his heart, in Ex. v—x. So, according to the prophet, Jehovah 
smites the confederate Syrians and Israelites, Is. vii—1x ; so in 
other passages, Jehovah is represented as smiting the nations of 
Judah, of Assyria, of Babylonia, of Egypt, of Tyre, of Moab, ete. 
Yet, in all these cases, instruments were employed. Solomon built 
the temple ; but he did not hew and Jay*the stones with his own’ 
hands, nor carve the goodly architecture. Nothing can be more 
erroneous, then, in most cases, than to draw the conclusion, that be- 
cause the Scripture asserts some particular thing to have been done 
by God, therefore he did it immediately, and no instruments were 
employed by him. How much difficulty and contradiction, as well 
in theology as in interpretation, has such a mode of reasoning pro- 
duced! In interpreting the principles of human laws, we say, 
Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Does not common sense approve 
of this, as applied to the language of the Scriptures? Nothing can 
be more evident, than that the sacred writers have expressed them- 
selves, in a manner which recognizes this principle. 

If then we are pressed with the Literal explanation of 6 dv oy- 
yéhov Aoyos, and any one insists, that this can mean no less than 


Excursvs VIII. Hes. 2: 2. 349 





that angels uttered audible sounds, when the law was given; all 
this may be conceded, and still no contradiction be found in the 
representations of Scripture, when its usus loquendi is well under- 
stood. God did what the angels performed by his direction. 

Yet such a /iteral interpretation of this passage, is hardly to be 
insisted on. Stephen, in Acts 7: 53, and Paul in Gal. 3: 19; as- 
sert only that the law was diarayeig dv ayyéhwv ; which well ex- 
presses the general sense to be attached to an expression of this na- 
ture, viz. ‘ the angels were ministering spirits, or assisted at the 
giving of the law.’ Such was the Jewish tradition, in the apostolic 
age. . Josephus says, “‘ Our best maxims and most excellent laws 
we have learned of God, de ayyédwv, Archaeol. XV. 9.” Philo, 
(Lib. de Decalogo), states, that ‘‘ there were present, at the giving 
of the law, visible sounds, animated and splendid, flames of fire, 
avevmata, trumpets, and divine men running hither and thither, 
to publish the law.” Yet in another, place he states, that ‘‘ God 
only spake the law to Moses ;” which, however, as we have seen 
above, is not inconsistent with the former representation. 

In addition to all this, there is a passage in Deut. 33: 2, respect- 
ing the legislation at Sinai, which seems to refer to the fact design- 
ed to be stated in our text. ‘‘ The Lord came from Sinai, and rose 
up from Seir unto them [the children of Israel]; he shined from 
mount Paran, and he came with holy myriads, (u7p naa47).” By 
the holy myriads here mentioned, must be meant the angels; so 
that the Old and New Testament agree, in representing the angels 
as present when the law was given, and as being ministering spirits 
on the occasion. 

That the Jews, and a multitude of Christians after them, have 
carried speculation to a repulsive length, on the subject of angelic 
ministration at the giving of the law, does not disprove the fact it- 
self; much less are their extravagances to be imputed to the writer 
of our epistle. While some have maintained, that the angels made 
circuits round the camp of the Hebrews ; others, that they excited 
the thunders, and lightnings, and tempest; some that they blew 
the trumpets ; others that they caused the quaking of the earth; 
some that they delivered the tables of the law to Moses ; others that 
they uttered audibly the words of the Law; and others still that 
they were mere spectators of the awful scene; we may stand aloof 
from being thus wise above what is written, and content ourselves 


350 Excursus IX. Hes. 2: 6—8. 





simply with what our author teaches us, and what the Scriptures 
confirm, viz. that angels did assist at the giving of the law, or were 
in some way employed by Jehovah, on the occasion of its being 
promulgated. This is all the text can be well interpreted as mean- 
ing, and all that is requisite for the argument of the apostle. 


EXCURSUS IX. 


Heb. 2: 6—8. Aeucgtveato dé nov tic, A€yov, Th 20- 
Ty avikow@nos, Ow Meuvynony auroy 3 AMiactooag av- 
TOV Boayy u nag ayyéhous: dokEn xal Tuy eorepava— 
cas avioy, (xal xaréotnoas avioy eal ta éoya tov 
YElowy Gov)’ mavie vagtakas Vnoxatw toy nodav av— 


TOU. 


Thus far the quotation from Ps. vir. But how, it is asked, 
can this apply to Christ in particular, when the author of this Psalm 
evidently speaks of human nature, or man in general? Many of 
the later commentators reply to this question, by conceding that 
the apostle uses the words of the Psalm only in an accommodated 
sense, in order to express his own viewse of the superiority of 
Christ’s human nature. But this answer does not meet all the de- 
mands of the case. It is evident, that the writer appeals to Scrip- 
ture authority here, in support of the proposition whieh he had ad- 
vanced, viz. that the human nature of Christ is superior to that of 
the angels. If now the passage contains nothing more than an as- 
sertion of that dignity, which is common to all men, how would 
this tend to convince those to whom he wrote, that the human na- 
ture of Christ is superior to that of the angels ? 

It is difficult, then, to avoid the supposition, that the 8th Psalm 
was referred to the Messiah, by those whom the apostle addressed. 
Was it rightly referred to him as being prophetic of him, or not ? 
Many commentators answer in the negative. But is there not 
‘some reason here, to adhere to the more ancient method of inter- 


Excursus IX. Hep. 2: 6—8. 351 








pretation? Let the reader, now, peruse 2 Sam. vit. through, and 
then direct his attention to vs. 17-29, in particular to vs. 18, 19, 
26, 29, compared with the prophetic declarations of Nathan in vs. 
12—16. Does not the frame of mind, in which David appears to 
have been on this occasion, correspond well with that described in 
Ps. 8:5% Suppose now that David, in surveying the works of cre- 
ation, is, in the first place, deeply impressed with his own insignifi- 
cance, in a comparative point of view ; and then, in the next place, 
revolves in his mind the promises made to him, as recorded in 2 
Sam. vu. His mind is naturally led to dwell on the distinguished 
goodness of God, in exalting a creature so insignificant as himself, 
to honour so great as the prophet had promised to him. Among 
his posterity was to be one, who should be the Son of God, and on 
whom universal empire should be conferred, 2 Sam. 7: 12—16, 
compared with vs. 8--I1. In view of such honours, how natural 
would be the expressions in Ps. 8: 6-—-10. In the person of this 
illustrious descendant, whom Nathan had promised to him, he 
could see, with a prophetic eye, that the human nature would be 
exalted to universal dominion. No created thing was to be except- 
ed from this dominion. As to the particulars enumerated in Ps. 
8: 8, 9, they are plainly borrowed from Gen. 1: 26 seq. and indi- 
cate nothing more than universality of dominion. They amount 
to saying, ‘ The dominion originally assigned to man over the cre- 
ation around him, and abridged by his fall, is to be actually con- 
ferred on human nature; and this too in a still higher sense, inas- 
much as all things are to be subjected to the Messiah.’ In other 
words, not only is man to have such dominion as by his original 
creation he was designed to have, viz. over beasts and fowls and 
fishes, but nothing, in this case, is to be excepted. With such 
views as these, might not the royal Psalmist well add, ‘‘ How ex- 
cellent is thy name in all the earth !” 

Who now that admits the spirit of prophecy to have at all exist- 
ed, can deny that David might have had such a view of his future 
Son? Nay, considering the use which the apostle has made of 
the passage in question, is not this explanation of the Psalm a_pro- 
bable one? 

I am disposed, then, to believe that the course of thought, in 
David’s mind, was something like the following. ‘Lord, how in- 
significant am J, compared with the glorious works which the heay- 


352 Excursvus IX. Hes. 2: 6—8. 





ens display! Yet thou hast magnified thy goodness toward me, in 
a wonderful manner. Thou hast not only formed me in thine im- 
age, and bestowed many blessings upon me, but promised me a 
Son, on whom distinguished glory, and universal empire shall be 
conferred. Can it be, that human nature will be thus exalted ? 
Adored be thy name through all the earth !’ 

What is there, now, in all this, which is any more improbable, 
than any other prophetic declaration respecting a future Saviour 
and Lord of the world ? 

But if any one refuses to admit these views, there is still a 
sense, in which all the saints are, through Christ, to be exalted 
above angels, and to have a participation in the dominion of the 
world. They are, as being united with the Messiah, as being his 
brethren (Heb. 2: 11), to judge, i.e. rule [vw wi, xg/vecy] the world, 
1 Cor. 6: 2; to rule over the angels, 1 Cor. 6:3; to have power 
over the nations, and rule them, Rev. 2: 26, 27; to sit with the 
Redeemer on his throne, Rev. 3: 21; they are made kings and 
priests unto God, and reign over the earth, Rev. 5: 10. All this, 
however, is plainly spoken in a qualified sense; and such privile- 
ges are bestowed upon them only by virtue of their union with 
Christ, to whom supreme dominion belongs. In like manner we 
say, ‘The Romans held the empire of the world;’ attributing to 
the nation what properly belonged to their prince. 

Human nature, then, in the persons of the saints; in a special 
manner, of course, in the person of their head or leader ; is exalted 
to a state of precedence above the angels, to a state of universal 
dominion. Consequently, that Christ possessed a nature which 
was human, did not make him inferior to the angels, but (since 
this nature was to be thus. exalted) superior to them. And thus 
the Psalmist declared it should be. : 

If the whole passage be understood as limited principally to 
Christ, or as extending to the saints also, the point which the apostle 
aims to prove is established. But it is only by understanding the pas- 
sage according to the first method of interpreting it, that we can well 
apply, in its full force, the sequel of the apostle’s remarks. Indeed, 
what can be more evident, than that since the fall of our first par- 
ents, universal dominion, even over all the animal creation, has 
never been actually possessed by man? Christ only has it, in its 
full sense; and in him only have the words of Ps. vis. had a 7A7- 


Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 3538 








ewovs in all the extent of their meaning. When we once admit 
that prophetic anticipations of Christ were possible, and matters 
of fact, is there any thing which creates a serious difficulty, in sup- 
posing them to have been actually entertained by David in respect 
to Christ, and to have been uttered in the Psalm just mentioned ? 





EXCURSUS X. 


ro rf 2 Nw ‘ > > ~ 
Heb. 2: 13. Kal nada, Eyo écouce nenowdos én avian: 


, > \ \ \ ‘ o wet c , 
nai nah, Idov éyo, xai va naw~la a@ moe edmuev 0 He08. 


But how does the passage quoted relate to the Messiah? In 
Is. 8: 17, 18, the subject spoken of is the prophet himself, who de- 
clares that he will keep himself in the attitude of constant waiting, 
i, €. In expectation that the prophecies which he had just been ut- 
tering would be fulfilled ; and he appeals to the children, to which 
had been given symbolical names, and which God had given to 
him, as pledges that these prophecies would be fulfilled. It would 
seem, then, at first view, that our author had accommodated this 
passage, merely for the purpose of expressing his views of the sub- 
ject before him. There can be but little doubt, however, that 
when our epistle was written, the Jews in general construed a part 
of the chapter of Isaiah in question, as having respect to the Messi- 
ah. Thus Paul, in Rom. 9: 32, 33, seems plainly to refer to Is. 8: 
14, as the source of a part of his quotation; and this passage he 
treats as applicable to Christ. In a similar way, also, the passage 
under consideration, with the clause that follows, appears to be 
treated. Indeed, unless the persons to whom Paul wrote, would 
readily refer the passage quoted to the Messiah, it is difficult to 
perceive how the quotation, in the shape with which it is here in- 
troduced, would present any argument to them in favour of the 
position, that men are the brethren of the Messiah. But still, the 
mode of reasoning, it must be owned, seems to be argumentum ad 
hominem, or argumentum ex concessis, rather than from the real na- 

VOL. Il. 45 


354 Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 





ture of things, considered independently of the opinions of those 
to whom our author wrote. Critics, in modern times, have felt a 
difficulty in considering this species of argument as admissible by 
a sacred writer. 'The Christian fathers, however, had no difficul- 
ties of this sort; most of them freely admitted it. 

The majority of Protestant critics have considered the passage 
of Isaiah now in question, as actually spoken in the person of the 
Messiah. ‘This they have done, in order to avoid the necessity of 
admitting an argumentum ex concessis ; which has been regarded by 
them, as incongruous with the character of an inspired writer. But 
in avoiding one difficulty, they have fallen upon another equally 
great; for all the laws of exegesis, which bid us to connect text 
with context, and to interpret a writer so as to make him speak 
connectedly and directly to his purpose, are put at defiance, when 
we interpret the words of Is. 8: 17, 18, as originally having been 
spoken with direct and primary reference to the Messiah, or in his 
person. To admit such a violation, would be a more serious evil 
than to concede, with nearly all antiquity, that the apostles did 
sometimes employ the argumentum ex concessis, as in the case 
above stated. 

One may liken this case to that of a missionary in Hindoostan, 
who, designing to shew the possibility and probability that God 
might manifest himself in the flesh, should appeal, in the course 
of his argument, for the sake of silencing objectors, to the Shasters, 
which inculcate the doctrine that Vishnu became incarnate. 
Would such an appeal be morally wrong ?, And if not, might not, 
the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews make use of the views of 
those whom he addressed, respecting a particular passage of Scrip- 
ture, (although those views might not have been exegetically well 
grounded), in order to confirm them in the belief of a truth that 
was well-grounded, and which he knew to be certain, by revela- 
tion, or by other Scriptures which had a direct bearing upon it? 
However one might decide the case by reasoning @ priori, most 
men practically admit such methods of persuasion, and, in other 
things, are very ready to justify them. “Whether we are willing, 
however, or unwilling to admit the fact presented before us, can 
surely never alter the fact itself. Thus much we may truly say, 
viz. that those modes of explanation, which, in order to get rid of 
difficulty, set afloat all the fixed principles and fundamental laws 


Excursvus X. Hes. 2: 18. 355 








of interpretation, cannot be admitted without the greatest possible 
danger to the Scriptures; yet, without the admission of such prin- 
ciples, the words of the passages in question, do not appear suscep- 
tible of being construed as originally and primarily having had a 
direct reference to the Messiah. 

After all, this view of the subject applies merely to the simple 
interpretation of the original words of Is. viit., but not to the typi- 
cal design which may have been attached to the things or facts 
there related. We know that in the preceding chapter, the birth 
of a child to be called Emmanuel, who was to spring from a virgin, 
is predicted (7: 14) ; which birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that 
within some three years (comp. vs. 14 with 15, 16), the land of — 
Judah should be delivered from the confederated kings of Israel 
and Syria, who had invaded it. Originally and literally, this 
seems applicable only to the birth of a child within that period of 
three years; for how could the birth of Jesus, which happened 
seven hundred and forty two years afterwards, be a sign (mix) to 
Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom was to be freed from his 
enemies? Such a child, it would seem, was born at that period ; 
for in chapter 8: 8, 10, he is twice referred to as if then present, 
or at least then living. In v.10, our English version has translat- 
ed the proper name xnza¥, and thus obscured the form of the 
original Hebrew. Yet in Matt. 1: 23, the passage in Is. 7: 14 ap- 
pears to be cited, as containing a prophecy relative to the Saviour’s 
being conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. In what way 
then must we explain this? How was it a mAjomors of Is. 7: 14? 
To these questions, two answers may be given. (1) It may have 
been a Argmovg, in the same sense as Christ’s being called out of 
Egypt (Matt. 2: 15), wasa nhnowaes of Hosea 11: 1; i.e. the event, 
which happened in later times, bore a strong resemblance to the 
one which happened in earlier times; the later event too was of 
such a nature, that the words of Scripture, applied to characterize 
the early event, might be applied with a mAyowors, 1. e. with more 
completeness, with more force, more propriety, more energy, to the la- 
ter event, than to the earlier one. Just so the application of a pas- 
sage in the Old Testament, is made to the slaughter of the infants 
at Bethlehem, in Matt. 2: 17, 18, comp. Jer. 31: 15. In the same 
manner, many other passages of the New Testament are to be con- 
strued, which refer in a similar way to the Old Testament. 


356 Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 





But if this answer be unsatisfactory, it may be added, (2) That 
some of the extraordinary events themselves, related in Is. vi. and 
vir., may have been designed by God, and probably were designed 
by him, to be typical or symbolical of a future spiritual salvation 
and Saviour. Why is this any more impossible or improbable, 
than that there were other types and symbols, under the ancient dis- 
pensation, of things which were to exist under the new one? The 
Immanuel then born, in an extraordinary way, and then by his 
birth and name a pledge of temporal deliverance to Judah from 
their enemies, might well be a symbol of him who was to save his 
people from all their spiritual enemies, to bring in everlasting re- 
demption; whose name, also, was truly, in a much higher sense, 
dynoax, Gop wir us. Ifso, then the prophet, with his symboli- 
cal children (Is. 8: 18), giving assurance of temporal deliverance, 
may have acted a part that was symbolical of a future prophet, who 
would proclaim spiritual deliverance. In all this, there certainly 
is nothing impossible. The laws of exegesis are not infringed by 
such a supposition. The words of the prophet have but one sim- 
ple original meaning. They apply directly to the transactions with 
Ahaz. But the whole of these transactions may have been, (may I 
not add, seem actually to have been 7) designed to prefigure a greater 
prophet, and a greater deliverance. Unless we deny the possibility 
of prophetic symbol, we must admit the possibility of this. Its 
probability is deducible from the use which the New Testament 
writers make of these facts. They seem to consider them as hav- 
ing a relation to Christ. I grant the possibility of the exegesis, - 
which explains the whole as argumentum ad hominem. It might 
be justified by numerous appeals to the New ‘Testament ; and he 
who wholly denies this principle, only shews that he decides upon 
the subject by reasoning a priori; for the examination of facts can- 
not fail to convince any one who will patiently and thoroughly 
make it. But still, it does seem to me more probable, taking the 
appeal in Matt. 1: 23 to Is. 7: 14, and the appeal in our text and 
context to Is. 8: 17, 18, that the prophet and Immanuel here act 
parts, which may be regarded in the light of symbols. The extra- 
ordinary birth of the child Immanuel, at that time, is the symbol of 
the future birth of a spiritual Saviour; and the prophet with his 
children announcing deliverance from the confederated enemies of 
Israel, is a symbol of him who was to “ preach liberty to the cap- 


Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 357 
tives,” and whose spiritual children were to be the pledge, that all 
his promises of good should be fulfilled. Is there any thing unna- 
tural or strange in all this ? 

If now this be admitted, then the words of our text may not un- 
aptly be applied to. Christ. For as the type put his confidence in 
God, so did the antitype. As the type had children who were 
pledges for the deliverance of Judah, so has the antitype “many 
sons and daughters,” the pledges of his powerful grace, and sure- 
ties that his promises in regard to future blessings will be accom- 
plished. As the type confided in God, because he possessed a na- 
ture that was dependent and human, so the antitype must have a 
like nature in order to use the same language; and as the type 
bore the relation of parent to children that were pledges of future 
blessings, and therefore possessed a like nature with them, so the 
antitype had a community of nature with those who were his spirit- 
ual children, and who were pledges that all his promises should be 
performed. Comp. 2 Cor. 1: 22. 5: 5. 

Thus understood, the whole quotation may be regarded not on- 
ly as justified, but as apposite, Still, if any refuse to consider it 
in this light, because, as they aver, they are unable to see how the 
words of Isaiah can be considered in the light of prediction ; this 
reason cannot be regarded as in itself sufficiently valid. ‘The words 
employed in Is. vi. and vir. have, in themselves, I freely concede, 
no direct reference to the Messiah; but to things and events, con- 
nected with the affairs of Ahaz and his people. Neither have the 
words a double sense; which can never be conceded without des- 
troying the very basis of all stable interpretation. Yet the events 
themselves, events connected with the temporal deliverance of God’s 
people then, may be symbols of a subsequent and spiritual deliver- 
ance and deliverer. 

But if any one refuses to admit even thus much, it will be diffi- 
cult for him to shew, that the writer of this epistle might not use 
argumentum ex concessis here, (i. e. appeal to those views of Scrip- 
ture, which they whom he addressed entertained), in order to con- 
firm in them a belief of what he certainly knew to be true; as well 
as the Saviour could appeal to the Jewish belief, respecting the wan- 
dering of unclean spirits in desert places, and many of them taking 
possession of a man at one and the same time, Matt. 12: 43 seq. ; 
or as well as the Saviour could say to the Jews, “IfI by Beelze- 


358 Excursus X. Hep. 2: 13. 


bul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 
11: 19.” The difficulty is, in fact, no greater with the quotation 
under examination, than with many others in the New Testament. 
Understood in any of the ways that have been proposed, it forms no 
important objection against the sacred writings, or their divine 
authority ; although considered in the light of accommodation 
simply, it would interfere with some of the modern theories of in- 
spiration. But, as has already been stated, the ancient churches, 
high as their views were on the subject of inspiration, had no hesi- 
tancy, in general, to admit the principle, that the New Testament 
writers have, not unfrequently, applied the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures merely by way of accommodation. While then, for myself, I 
must believe there is something more than accommodation, in the 
passage under consideration, yet I should not feel it to be a just 
cause for want of charity towards another, who should adopt a dif- 
ferent mode of explanation, and regard the passages cited to be 
merely an argumentum ex concessis. 

It is a strong ground of confirmation, with respect to the symbol- 
ical exegesis which has been above proposed, that the prophecy in 
Isaiah, (which begins with the 8th chapter and ends with chap. 9: 
7), contains, at the close of it, most indubitable proofs, that the 
birth of the Messiah, and the “ coming of his kingdom’”’ was, on this 
occasion, distinctly before the mind of the prophet; see Is. 9: 1— 
7. The whole together, taken in connexion with what appears ev- 
idently to be the views of the New Testament writers, seems to 
leave but little doubt, that such as at all acknowledge the existence 
of prophecy and symbol, in respéct to a Messiah who was to come, 
may recognise them both inthe case before us. 





Excursus XI]. Hes. 5: 7. 359 


-EXCURSUS XI. 


ae , ~ c ~ ‘\ c . ‘ 
Heb. 5: 7. “Os ey taic nugears ms caoxos avtov, dey— 
\ \ ‘ , ie > Dy 
cee té xed Exernolas EOS TOY OUYaMEVOY C@lEeY aUTOY 
r ‘ ~ os en 1 ' 
éx PUVAIOV, META XOQUYNS LoZVOaS xaL DaxQVEeY 1Q06- 


eveyxac, nal EcoaxovodeEls ano ms evdaBecas. 


But what was that which Christ feared? And how can it be 
said, that he was delivered from it? Questions which commenta- 
tors, for the most part have passed by, even without any serious at- 
tempt to answer them. 

If now we turn to Luke 12: 50, we shall see that a view of suf- 
ferings then future, produced in the mind of Jesus an oppressive 
anticipation, a sensation of distress and dread, As the scene of 
crucifixion approached nearer, these sensations were evidently in- 
creased, until they became almost overwhelming ; as we may see 
by consulting Matt. 26: 36—39. Luke 22: 40-44. Mark 14: 34—- 
36. What the agonies of the cross which Jesus endured, actually 
were, we can never fully know; but we may draw the conclusion 
that they were very dreadful, if we read the account of the com- 
plaint which they forced from him, as it is recorded in Matt. 27: 46. 
Mark 15: 34. It is indeed unaccountable, that a character such as 
that of Jesus, pure, spotless, firm, unmoved by opposition and con- 
tumely and persecution, and unawed by threaténings and danger, 
during the whole course of his public ministry, should exhibit such 
a despondency, such an oppressive, overwhelming sense of pain and 
distress: I mean, it is unaccountable by any of the ordinary princi- 
ples which apply to virtuous sufferers, who possess fortitude of soul. 
That Jesus possessed this quality, in a most distinguished manner, 
we know certainly from the whole tenor of his life as pourtrayed by 
the evangelists. How then could he exhibit such an oppressive, 
overwhelming sense of dread, at the prospect of crucifixion? Thou- 
sands of men, nay thousands of the more delicate sex, in prospect 
of like sufferings or apparently greater ones, (such as the rack, the 
wheel, or flames occasion), have been perfectly calm, collected, and 
even triumphant. 'The very thieves, on the cross at the same time 


360 Excursus XI. Hes. 5: 7. 


with Jesus, exhibit no such signs of despondency and oppression. 
Thousands and millions of common men, without God and without 
hope in the world, have undergone sufferings greater than those of 
simple crucifixion, without even uttering a groan. Yet Jesus was 
not only supported by a consciousness of spotless innocence, but 
had before him the certain prospect of a speedy resurrection from 
the dead, of exaltation to the right hand of God, and of being a king 
and high priest forever, unto all his people. Still, he was in such 
an agony at the prospect of the cross, as to sweat as it were drops 
of blood, Luke 22: 44. And when actually enduring the suffering 
which he had anticipated, his exclamation, Matt. 27: 46, shews that 
he had not over-estimated the dreadful hour. ! 

If Jesus died as a common virtuous sufferer, and merely as a 
martyr to the truth, without any vicarious suffering laid upon him, 
then is his death a most unaccountable event, in respect to the 
manner of his behaviour while suffering it; and it must be admit- 
ted, that multitudes of humble, sinful, weak, and very imperfect 
disciples of Christianity, have surpassed their Master, in the forti- 
tude, and collected firmness, and calm complacency, which are re- 
quisite to triumph over the pangs of a dying hour. But who can 
well believe this? Or who can regard Jesus as a simple sufferer in 
the ordinary way, upon the cross, and explain the mysteries of his 
dreadful horror, before and during the hours of crucifixion ? 

Such then was the eviaPeva, NI, object of dread, to which 
our text adverts. But how was Jesus séoaxovodsis, delivered from 
it? Pierce, in his commentary, says, that he was delivered by be-. 
ing raised from the dead and advanced to glory. But this would 
make the object of fear or dread to be, that he should remain in 
the state of the dead- ‘This fear we can hardly suppose Jesus to 
have entertained, inasmuch as ke had often-foretold, to his disci- 
ples, not only his death, but his resurrection and exaltation to glo- 
ry. Nor could it be the sufferings of the cross that he was deliver- 
ed from, for he endured them to a dreadful degree. What then 
was it, in respect to which he was e/oaxovodsic, heard, or deliver- 
ed? The context necessarily limits the hearing or deliverance, to 
something in his petitions which appertained to suffering, which 
was an object of dread. What could it be, but the dread of sinking 
under the agony of being deserted by his Father? Matt. 27: 46. 
Great as his agony was, he never refused to bear it; nor did he 


Excursus XII. Hes. 6: 4—6. 361 





shrink from tasting the bitter cup, Luke 22: 42. Matt. 26:39. And 
“does not Luke 22: 43 explain our stoaxovotsis ano evdaBelas ? 
‘There appeared unto him an angel from heaven strengthening 
him, éoyiwv avrov.”” This was the only kind of deliverance he 
sought for, or on the whole desired; Luke 22: 42, sAqjy un to Oe 
Anuc wou ade 10 ov yevéodo. The dread in question was, like 
all his other sufferings, incident to his human nature; and fact 
shews, that he suffered under it to a high degree ; but he did not 
shrink from it, and so he was heard or delivered in respect to the 
object of his petition in regard to it. 

In the explanation of a passage so difficult, confidence would be 
unbecoming. I can only say, If this be not the right interpretation 
of it, I am ignorant of its true meaning, and will most thankfully 
receive from any one a more probable interpretation. 


EXCURSUS XII. 


Heb. 6: 4—6. “Advvatoy yao rovg anak porotérras, 
YEVONMEVOUS TE HS dwpens énoveaviou xi METOZOUS 
yevniev vas nvevmcros ayiou, “al xahov YEevoamevous 
eou Onuc, Ovva mes te péddovtos GL@VOS, xOL MAE 


‘ r > %, > f 
MEGOVIAS, nahw avaxawiley &S méetTavolay, 


But does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to 
those who are such only by profession? To the former, beyond all 
reasonable doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn 
those who were mere professors of Christianity, against defection, 
and apostasy? Defection from what? From a graceless condi- 
tion, and from a state of hypocrisy. Such must be the answer, if 
mere professors, and not possessors, of Christianity be addressed. 
But mere professors, instead of being cautioned against defection 
from the state in which they are, are every where denounced in lan- 
guage of the severest reprobation. See Rev. 3: 15, 16, and the de- 
nunciations of the Saviour against the Pharisees. 

VOL. II. 46 


362 Excursus XII. Hes. 6: 4—6. 


Moreover the language employed to describe the condition of 
the persons in question, shews that the writer is addressing those 
whom he takes to be real Christians. E. g. wetoyous.... mvevjertos 
aylov, xchov ysvounevous Yeov Oyuc. Above all, modw dvanae- 
vitsey Eig wetavotay ; for how could he speak of being aGain re- 
newed by repentance, if he did not address them as once having 
been renewed by it ? 

The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with 
which it is threatened, shews that something peculiar is attached to 
the case which the writer is describing. ‘Sinners, who have been 
taught the doctrines of religion, and yet renounce their ezternal re- 
spect for it, are manifestly not without the pale of God’s mercy ; at 
least, they are not so considered in the Scriptures generally, and 
fact shews that they are not. It is a peculiar and aggravated case, 
then, which is here stated ; and what other case can it be, than that 
of apostasy from a state of saving knowledge of Christ and his gos- 
pel? Nor is such a case at all without a parallel in the Scriptures. 
Manifestly such an one is stated in Heb. 10: 26—32; also in 2 Pet. 
2: 20—22; in Ezek. 18: 24. 33: 12, 13. 3: 20, and in many other 
passages of the Bible. It is implied in every warning, and in every 
commination addressed to the righteous; and surely the Bible is 
filled with both of these, from the beginning to the end. What is 
implied, when our Saviour, in his Sermon on the mount, urges up- 
on his disciples, 1. e. the apostles as well as other disciples (see 
Luke 6: 12—20), the duty of cutting off a right hand, and of pluck- 
ing out a right eye that offends ; and this, on penalty of being cast , 
into hell ? Matt. 25: 29, 30. Is this penalty really threatened ; or 
is it only a pretence of threatening, something spoken merely in ter- 
rorem? Can we hesitate, as to the answer which must be given 
to this question ? : 

But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the 
implication is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Chris- 
tians are addressed as exposed to incur the penalty of the divine 
law by sinning. In our text, they are surely addressed as exposed 
to fall into a state, in which there is no hope of a renewal by repen- 
tance. Whatever may be true, in the divine purposes, as to the 
final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated, (and this 
doctrine I feel constrained to admit), yet nothing can be plainer, 
than that the sacred writers have every where addressed saints in 


Excursus XIII. Hes. 7: 3. 363 





the same manner as they would address those, whom they consid- 
ered as constantly exposed to fall away, and to perish forever. It 
cannot be denied, that all the warnings and awful comminations, 
(directed against cases of defection), are addressed to Christians, 
in the New Testament, which could be addressed to them, suppos- 
ing them to be liable, every hour, to sin beyond the hope of being 
renewed by repentance. Whatever theory may be adopted, in ex- 
planation of this subject, as a matter of fact there can be no doubt, 
that Christians are to be solemnly and earnestly warned against the 
danger of apostasy and consequent final perdition. What else is 
the object of the whole epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning 
against apostasy ? In this all agree. But this involves all the dif- 
ficulties that can be raised by metaphysical reasonings, in regard to 
the perseverance of the saints. For why should the apostle warn 
true Christians, (and such he surely believed there were among the 
Hebrews, 6:9), against defection and perdition? My answer would 
be, Because God treats Christians as free agents, as rational beings; 
because he guards them against defection, not by mere physical 
power, but by moral means adapted to their natures, as free and ra- 
tional agents. Let every man speculate as he pleases on this sub- 
ject, when he addresses Christians by way of warning, he will in- 
evitably fall into the same modes of address. And plainly he ought 
so to do; for thus have all the sacred writers done, and thus did 
the Saviour himself. 





EXCURSUS XIII. 


Heb. 7: 3. “Anarwe, untae, ayevecdoyntos, unre aOZnY 
Hugooy unre Cons téhog éyav, egououmpévos 0é 19 vio 
10U Seou, méver isgevs erg 10 OupvEexés. 


The description of Melchisedek, in v. 3, has been interpreted 
in a variety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions, re- 
specting the person introduced here by this name. I shall very 
briefly exhibit some of them, without delaying to examine them. 


364 Excursus XIII. Hes. 7: 3. 


(1) The Hieracitae, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Haeres. 
LXVII.), held Melchisedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome under- 
takes to confute them, Epist. ad Evagrium. 

(2) The Melchisedeciani, (the author of which sect was Theo- 
dotus, or Thomas), held Melchisedek to be one of the duvemece of 
God, emanated from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of 
which Christ was formed. 

(3) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Haeres. LX VII. testi- 
fies), that Melchisedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos ; the 
same who appeared to Abraham, and to the patriarchs, etc. This 
opinion was held by Ambrose ; and it has been defended in recent 
times, by Molinaeus, Cunaeus, Gaillard, Outre, Hottinger, Stark, _ 
Petersen, and others. 

(4) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchisedek to be an 
angel. . 

(5) Others have held that Melchisedek was a man formed be- 
fore the creation, out of spiritual and not of earthly matter. 

(6) Melchisedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth, after 
the flood. So Hen. Hulsius. 

(7) Melchisedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. 
and Jerus.; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Ge- 
nebrard, Torniello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church; and 
among Pretestants, Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Run- 
gius, and others. 

(8) Melchisedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis. 

(9) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, 
Crenius, Buddaeus, and others. _ 

(10) Melchisedek was a righteous and peaceful king, a worship- 
per and priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan; a 
friend of Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him. 

This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. 
xiv., and in Heb. vir. ; and itisthe only one which can be defended 
on any tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more im- 
probable, than all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception 
of this? The most popular opinion among them all, viz. that Mel- 
chisedek was Christ, would of course force us to adopt this interpre- 
tation, viz. that ‘ Christ is like unto himself ;’ or, that a comparison 
is formally instituted by our author, between Christ and himself ;— 
‘¢ cujus mentio est refutatio.” 


Excursus XIV. Hep. 7: 9, 10. 365 








EXCURSUS XIV. 


Heb. 7:9, 10. Kel, ao &io¢g etnety, dca “ABoaam xai 


< , Ul \ Y Lf ” ‘ 
Aevi, o dsexaras dauBavay, dedexatarae ete yao ev 


ws ae ~ \ 7 ’ 2 ee he A 
Th Oopul tov WateOS HY, Oe oUYHYInoEY aut@ Oo Mes— 


[wEden. 


For a Hebrew, this assertion would less need an we é20¢ ecmety, 
than for us, whose modes of thinking and reasoning in regard to 
genealogies, descent, and rank, are so very different from those of 
the oriental nations. Since Abraham was deemed, by his posteri- 
ty, to be the patriarch and head of all his descendants, in such a 
sense as to hold a pre-eminence in rank above them, a proof that 
he acknowledged his inferiority to Melchisedek, by paying tithes 
to him, was a proof that his descendants must of course be inferior 
to Melchisedek. The statement in vs. 9 and 10, is built upon the 
oriental modes of estimating descent and rank. Since Levi, who 
was of the posterity of Abraham, might be reckoned as then vir- 
tually in the patriarch ; and, since he descended from him, and 
therefore could not be regarded as of a rank above him; it would 
follow, according to the Jewish mode of reasoning, that the priest- 
hood of Melchisedek was of a rank superior to that of Levi. 

If it be said, ‘‘ We do not need such considerations as these, to 
establish the superior priesthood of Christ ; neither do we, in this 
manner, count upon genealogy, and descent, and rank ;” I freely 
assent. But then I am not able to see, why this should at all de- 
tract from the propriety or the weight of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
viz. that the writer has fully met the exigencies of the case, which 
called forth the epistle itself; and met them in just such a way as 
was adapted to the condition of his readers, and the modes of rea- 
soning to which they were accustomed. If they attached high im- 
portance and dignity to the Levitical priesthood, because the Le- 
vites descended from Abraham, (as they surely did), and this opin- 
ion served to fill their minds with difficulty in regard to :Admitting, 
that the priesthood of Christ could supersede that of Aaron; then 


366 Excursus XIV. Hes. 7:9,10. — 


was it directly to the writer’s purpose, to remove this prejudice, 
and to shew them, that according to their own grounds of argu- 
ment and computation, Melchisedek must be superior to the Levit- 
ical priests, and to Abraham himself. If now in doing this, (which 
all must admit was necessary and proper to be done), the writer 
has met their prejudices with arguments specially adapted to this 
purpose, and the force of which they must acknowledge, if true to 
their own principles ; and, at the same time, he has averred noth- 
ing which is adapted to inculcate error, or to mislead others who 
were educated in a different manner from the Hebrews; then has 
he done what every wise and prudent man ought to do, under cir- 
cumstances like his. And if several of his arguments are not now 
needed by us, and cannot well be employed by us, at the present 
time, with any particular efficacy, this makes nothing against his 
discretion, or against the validity of his reasoning. We all enjoy 
the light which has been shed around us by the whole of the New 
Testament. Of this the Hebrews had little or nothing. We are 
educated with views and feelings entirely different, in many res- 
pects, from those in which they were brought up. We do not, 
therefore, need to be addressed and reasoned with, in all respects 
just as they did. Many of their prejudices, we have not; many of 
their doubts with respect to the superiority of Christianity over the 
Mosaic religion, we never entertained. Many things, then, which 
were said with great force and propriety to them, by our author, 
cannot be addressed to us with the same pertinency, nor felt with 
the same power. * 

Let the reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews be judged of 
equitably, by taking into view such considerations as these, and all 
difficulties of any serious import, will, as I am inclined to believe, 
be removed from the mind of a serious, candid, and intelligent rea- 
der. Such considerations, too, might have saved the many znuen- 
dos, (with which we meet, in not a few of the recent commentaries 
on our epistle), that the writer has built nearly all his arguments 
upon allegory and accommodation; an accommodation which al- 
lows the whole force of all the erroneous methods of Jewish reason- 
ing, and conforms to it, merely in order to prevent the apostasy of 
professed Christians. I cannot acquiesce in the latitude of this 
opinion ; ior can I well admit, that a sacred writer would make 
use of an argument, which in its nature he knows to be wholly er- 


Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. 367 





roneous and destitute of force, for the sake of persuading men to 
embrace Christianity, or to continue in the profession of it. Would 
not this be “ doing evil, that good might come” But I feel no ob- 
jection to admitting, that argumentum ad hominem may be employ- 
ed, for the sake of confuting errorists, and exposing their inconsis- 
tency. The Saviour himself plainly resorts to this, in some cases ; 
see Matt. 12:27. Luke 11: 19. So in our epistle, it cannot be 
deemed irrelevant or improper, if the writer shews the Jews, that 
from their own modes of counting descent, and reckoning prece- 
dence in regard to rank, Melchisedek, (and consequently Jesus), 
was as a priest of an order superior to the Levites. For substance 
this is done, in the chapter under examination. Yet there is noth-_ 
ing conceded here, which can in any way endanger the principles 
of truth. At the same time, after the explanations that have been 
made, it is hazarding nothing to say, that we now have more con- 
vincing arguments than those here used, to establish the superiori- 
ty of Christ’s priesthood. But, let it be remembered, we owe them 
to the New Testament which we have in our hands, and which the 
Hebrews had not. Many things, therefore, needed by them in 
their condition, and with the greatest propriety urged upon them, 
are less applicable and less important to us, merely because our cir- 
cumstances differ so much from theirs. 

If the reader wants confirmation, in regard to the statement 
above made, of the Jewish views respecting the precedency of 
Abraham, let him peruse Matt. 3: 9. John 8: 52—58. Luke {6: 
22—25. 





EXCURSUS XV. 


oid ‘ ’ f ‘ 
Heb. 8: 5. “Oga yag, gyol, nomons navta xata tov ri 
my ~~ 
nov tov dezdéevta Got év 16 Oger. 


It has been asked, In what way was this tuUno¢ exhibited to 
Moses? Was it by ocular vision ; or by suggestion to the mind; 
or by words communicated to Moses, descriptive of the form in 


368 Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. 


which the tabernacle should be constructed? The answer to all 
such questions is very easy; viz. that the subject is beyond the 
boundaries of human knowledge, so that we can know nothing 
more respecting it, than what Moses himself has told us. But this _ 
is merely an assertion of the fact, that the zUn0g was exhibited to 
him. He says nothing at all, of the manner in which it was exhib- 
ited. Consequently, the fact is all that we can know; and surely 
it is all that we need to know ; for of what importance to us can 
the manner be, in which this revelation was made? The passage 
in Acts 7: 44, which speaks of the tvzov that Moses éwoaxer, de- 
termines nothing, as it is not said whether he saw in a bodily or 





mental manner; and the word éogaxee is plainly applicable to ei- 


ther. In 1 Chron. 28: 19, David, after having drawn a plan for the 
temple says, Adi, which is in the writing from the hand of the Lord, 
i.e. made by divine assistance ; b*>wm, he taught me, even all the 
work mz1n7, tumo0v, i.e. of the plan. Yet here was no ocular 
disclosure. Consequently, the words used in our text will not de- 
termine the manner of the communication to Moses; and therefore 
we are not to consider it as capable of being definitely determined. 

It follows, of course, that the exhibition of a visible temple in 
heaven, to the view of Moses, of a temple having form and locality, 
cannot be assumed; unless we build upon that which has no foun- 
dation to support it. The most that we can know of this subject 
is, that on mount Sinai, the Lord revealed to Moses the tumoy of 
the tabernacle which he was to build; and that this is merely a 
unodsvyua and oxea of the heavenly one. Is it a vnodsuypa then. 
in a material sense, or in a spiritual, moral one? In the latter, 
without any reasonable doubt ; for so the whole nature of the argu- 
ment leads us to conclude. The apostle is not comparing one 
material tabernacle on earth, with another more magnificent one of 
the same kind in heaven; but a material earthly one, with one 
which the Lord made, which is ov yecoomolnros, and ov ravryg 
tng “ticews, 9: 11, i.e. which is spiritual and heavenly in its na- 
ture. ‘The whole representation, then, comes to this; ‘ ln heaven 
are truly and really all those things, which the Jewish tabernacle 
and temple, with all their rites and offerings, only adumbrated. 
What is there, is reality in the highest and noblest sense ; what is 
here, is comparatively only shadow and effigy. Christ does really 
there, what the high-priest has been accustomed to do figuratively 


Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. 369 





and symbolically here. The temple here faintly represents, (is um0- 
devyuc and oxve of), real spiritual existences and occurrences 
there.’ fa 

The very nature of the heavenly world, and of the apostle’s ar- 
gument, is sufficient to shew, that this is all which can be rationally 
deduced from the language which he employs. It would be just 
as rational to maintain, that God has a local habitation, and a cor- 
poreal form visible to the eye, because the Scriptures speak of his 
Jized dwelling place in heaven (34372), and of his hands and eyes 
and face and heart, as it would be to suppose that the temple above, 
in which Christ ministers, possesses form, and is composed of ma- 
terial substance, like that which was built by the Jews.. This was 


merely oxa; that is adyndeva, UnooTaoss, i.e. of heavenly, spi- | 


ritual, divine Uz0etaovg, not earthly, visible, local matter. 

How to build the earthly tabernacle, Moses was instructed on 
the mount. But whether a form of the same was presented to his 
vision, bodily or mental; or whether he was taught by words, what 
the ruzog should be, does not, (as we have seen), appear from 
Scripture; nor is it important for us to know. Enough to know, 
that the earthly tabernacle is related to the heavenly one, only as 
shadow to substance ; and consequently that our great high priest 
above, is exalted to a rank unspeakably higher than that of the Jew- 
ish high priest. 

All which Moses and the people of Israel saw upon mount Si- 
nai, the darkness and smoke, the fire, the cloud, and the light- 
nings ; the voice of the trumpet which they heard, and the quaking 
of the earth which they felt, (Ex. 19: 17—20 20: 18—21. 24: 1, 
2,9, 10, 15—18. Heb. 12: 18—21); were manifestly symbols 
merely of the divine presence, adapted to inspire the people with 
reverence and awe. In the same manner, the man or tunoc of 
the tabernacle to be built, was a symbol of what is heavenly or di- 
vine. It may just as well be argued from the clouds, and dark- 
ness, and fire, and lightning, and thunder, and earthquake of Sinai, 
that all these belong materially and formally to the heavenly world, 
as that the rusrog exhibited to Moses, was an actually visible, mate- 
rial part of heaven. 

If now the tabernacle built by Moses, the greatest of all the 
Jewish prophets, Heb. 3: 2, was nothing more than an aytirunog 
of that in heaven, Heb. 9: 23, 24, a mere oxce of it, 8:5; then the 

VOL. Il. 47 


Me 


370 Excursus XVI. Hen. 9: 4. 





temple built by Solomon, which was only an imitation of this, 1 K. 
8: 10--19. 1 Chron. 28: 19; and that in aftertimes, built by Ze- 
robabel, Ez. 5: 1 seq., and which was less magnificent, Ez. 3: 12, 
13; must also be merely ayrizumos and oxcai of that temple, of 
which Jesus is the priest. Consequently, the greater dignity of his 
priestly office may be obviously inferred, from this comparison. 


EXCURSUS XVI. . 


Heb. 9: 4. Xeuoovy éyouca Iumcarmouoy. 


There is great difficulty and much perplexity among commen- 
tators, in regard to the @vuceryjovoy here mentioned. Moses 
makes no mention of such a sacred utensil, as appertaining to the 
most holy place ; neither does the description of Solomon’s temple, 
(modelled after the tabernacle), contain any information respecting 
it. Ouvucarnavov, in its general sense, indicates any thing which 
contains duudeua or incense; so that it may be applied either to 
an altar of incense, or to any pot or vessel, adapted for offering in- 
cense by burning it. Josephus applies Ovusarynovoy to the altar 
of incense, Antiq. II]. 6,8; and so some have applied the word,. 
in the phrase under consideration. But it isa strong, if not con- 
clusive objection to this, that the altar of incense was before the 
vail of the most holy place, and not within it, Ex. 30: 1—6. 40: 5, 
26. Moreover this altar is called, in Hebrew, n> 1oRa 3472, Ex. 
37: 25. 2 Chron. 26: 19, 16; nePe mai, Ex. 40: 53 or, mat 
nN OP opr, Ex. 30: 1. In Greek, it is named Pvoveornjocor, and 
Siaiedbioceigitoy Svurcouatos. On this altar, moreover, daily offer- 
ings of incense were to be made, both morning and evening, Ex. 
30: 1—8. The horns of it, once in each year, were to be sprink- 
led with blood, viz. on the great day of atonement, Ex. 30:10. But 
I am unable to find any place, which declares that this altar was 
carried within the vail, on the day just named, by the priest who 
offered incense before the Lord. On the contrary, the incense of- 


Excursus XVI. Hep. 9: 4. 371 





fered on that day, was strewed on a vessel of burning coals, or a 
censer, i. e. pan or fire pan, which the priest held in his hand, and 
carried with him into the most holy place, Lev. 16: 12-14. The 
name of the vessel was smn, Lev. 16: 12. Ex, 27: 3. 38: 3. 1K. 
7:50. 2 Chron. 4:22. In 2 Chron. 26: 19, this vessel is named 
nm OP, and again in Ezek. 8: 11; in both which places the Sep- 
tuagint have @uucarnovoy. Now nothing can be plainer, than that 
the mpm and n7Gp7 were different from the altar of incense, 
MN epa mai. Upon this, on the morning and evening of every 
day, offerings of incense were made; and-this altar stood before 
the vail, Ex. 30: 6-—-8. On the day of atonement, also, the horns 
of it were to be sprinkled with blood, Ex. 30: 10. 40: 5, 26. B 
the incense before the Lord, which was to be offered in the inner 
sanctuary, was offered upon a mma, pan of burning coals, Lev. 
16: 12. Uzziah was about to burn incense in this manner, when 
the priests withstood him, 2 Chron. 26. 16--19. Comp. also the 
case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10: 1. 

That the incense altar was stationary, is plain from the dimen- 
sions assigned to itin Ex. 30: 1, 2, viz. a cubit (i. e. 1,8, foot) long 
and broad, and two cubits in height. The removal of cee by the 
high priest, into the most holy place, is out of question, when we 
consider that it was made of solid materials, probably metal of some 
kind. But the censers (fire pans) were hand-utensils, constructed 
for the very purpose of taking coals from the altar of burnt offering, 
(where the fire was never suffered to become extinguished), for 
the various uses of the temple, Lev. 16: 12. The whole difficulty 
then, in our verse, amounts to this, viz. whether the yougouy du- 
putatyovoy, here mentioned, was laid up or deposited in the most 
holy place. That there were several Ouucaryjoce or MmM, is cer- 
tain from Ex. 27:3. 38:3. That the nm or Suurarnovor, 
which was employed by the high priest, was yovoour i.e. gilded, 
or (if you will) golden, is highly probable ; indeed, one would sup- 
pose quite certain, seeing that the altar of incense, (which was de- 
signed only for the every day’s offering of incense), was to be over- 
laid with pure gold, Ex. 30: 3. Much more, may we well suppose, 
that the censer, (carried by the high priest into the aysa ayiwy, on 
the most solemn of all days, viz. the day of atonement for the whole 
nation), was covered with gold, i.e. was yovoovr, as the apostle 
calls it. Moses, indeed, has not given us any particular descrip- 


72 Excursus XVI. Hes. 9: 4. 





tion of such a censer ; nor is it mentioned particularly in the des- 
cription of Solomon’s temple ; nor is it any where said in the Old 
‘Testament, that such a censer was Jaid up in the most holy place. 
But as nothing can be more probable, than that the censer was 
yovoouv ; so nothing can be more probable than that it was depos- 
ited in the inner sanctuary. That acenser used for the most sa- 
cred of all the temple rites, on a day the most solemn of all the 
Jewish festival days, should be used for the common and every day 
occasions of temple service, is highly improbable ; especially when 
we consider that every thing pertaining to the service of the inner 
sanctuary, was regarded in a light that corresponded with the de- 
_ signation of that place, viz. ayia ayia, or DWP WIP. 

Besides, the writer of our epistle, so intimately acquainted 
with every thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and in- 
deed to the whole Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed 
to have mistaken the fact, relative to the materials of which the 
censer used on the great day of expiation was made, or to the place 
where it was deposited. How easily would those whom he addres- 
sed have detected his error, and been led, of course, to think light- 
ly of his accuracy, when matters so obvious escaped his notice! 
In short, all the objection against the account of our author is, that 
the Old Testament is silent in regard to the two particulars about 
the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was yovoouy, and that 
it was deposited in the ayva ayiwy. But surely silence, in such a 
case, is no contradiction ; and the nature of the whole case is such, 
there can be no rational doubt, that our author has made a correct . 
statemeni. ‘The want of correctness here would have argued an 
ignorance on his part, which would have destroyed all his credit 
with those whom he addressed. 

If an apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, 
any one may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning 
the difficulties which have been made about it, and the charges of 
inaccuracy, or failure of memory, which have been made against 
the writer of our epistle, on account of the clause yevoouy éyouvoa 
Suprarnovov. : 


Excursus XVII. Hes. 9: 4. 373 


EXCURSUS XVII. 


Heb. 9: 4. ’Ey 9, stapros yovon &yovoe to warvve, nai 
9 @aB8d05 “Aagwr y BAaomouca, xai ai nhaxes HS 
Sead nxyS. 


But there is another difficulty, in regard to the phrase under 
consideration. It is said, 1 K. 8:9 and 2 Chron. 5: 10, that “ there — 
was nothing in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put there- 
in at Horeb.” This, no doubt, is true; but our author is speaking, 
in Heb. 9: 4, of the tabernacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, 
and not of the temple built some five hundred years afterwards ; 
still less, of the second temple, which, after the burning of the first 
by Nebuchadnezzar, must have lacked even the tables of the testi- 
mony or law. These were probably destroyed, at the time when 
the first temple was consumed ; since we have no authentic intelli- 
gence respecting them afterwards. It is probable, too, that the 
first temple lacked both the pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron ; 
at least we have no account of their being deposited in it. The 
probability is, that the ark, during its many removals by the Israel- 
ites after it was constructed, and in particular during its captivity by 
the Philistines, 1 Sam. 4: 11. 5: 1. 6: 1, 21, was deprived of these 
sacred deposits; for we hear no more concerning them. Be this 
as it may, our author is fully justified, when, in describing the tab- 
ernacle, he attributes to it what the Pentateuch does ; and that the 
pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were laid up in the most holy place, 
and in the ark of the covenant, may be seen in Ex. 16: 32—84. 
Num. 17: 10 (17: 25). In both these passages, the Hebrew runs 
thus; Laid up niszr 7295, before the testimony, i. e. either before 
the ark containing the testimony; or (which is altogether more 
probable), before the testimony itself, i.e. the two tables which were 
in the ark. Consequently, they were laid up with the testimony, 
i.e. the two tables ; and the account given by our author is strictly 
correct. 

It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Mo- 
‘ses, that he is describing throughout. As this was patterned after 


wy 


374 Excursus XVIII. Hes. 9: 14. 





that which Moses “ had seen upon the mount,” and was built by 
workmen who had particular divine assistance Ex. 36: 1, it was, of 
course, regarded by the Jews as the most perfect structure of all 
that had been erected for the worship of God. Perfect as it was, 
however, the apostle labours to shew, that it was a mere shadow or 
image of the heavenly tabernacle, in which Jesus ministers. 


EXCURSUS XVIII. 


"nN \ r > x r 
Heb. 9:14. “Oc dca mvevatos avoviou éavtoy ngosyvey— 
uv ~ ~ 
nev AM@MOY Ta Hen. 


Ave MVEVMATOS awviov is a difficult phrase, about the meaning 
of which a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some un- 
derstand it of the Holy Spirit ; and some manuscripts and versions 


~ read eyiov instead of wiwviov. But in what respect the Holy Spi- 


rit rendered the offering of Christ perfect (#ummov), it would be 
difficult to shew from other parts of the Scriptures ; which contain, 
so far as I have been able to discover, no assertions of a doctrine 
analogous to this. Others, as Ernesti, Capell, Outrein, Wolf, Cra- 
mer, Carpzoff, etc., understand it of the divine nature of Christ. 
But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the highest 
value, on account of the dignity of his person, in consequence of 
the higher nature which dwelt in him; yet the sacred writers re- 
present him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in 
his divine. Heb. 2: 14, 17, 18. Col. 1: 21, 22. Phil. 2: 6—8. Heb. 
10: 5, 10. 1 Pet. 2:24. But, independently of this consideration, 
instances are wanting satisfactorily to prove, that mvevua ayvov or 
aioveov, when applied to Christ, designates simply his divine nature, 
as such. 

Others consider aveiue aioveoy as designating the idea of a 
victim, the sacrifice of which had perpetual efficacy to procure the 
pardon of sin; which is the ground of the epithet, adw»cov. Thus 
Noesselt, in his essay on this passage contained in his Opuscula. 
But in this case, no wsus loquendi can be alleged, to justify such an 
interpretation. — 


is 


Excursus XVIII. Hes. 9: 14. Bye 





_ Others, as Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Jaspis, 
etc. consider mvevue. aioveoy as endless or immortal life, comparing 
it with 7: 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable 
nature of the beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are 
mentioned in the preceding verse. The antithesis would then be 
thus ; ‘ If mere perishable brutes, slain in sacrifice, effected external 
sanctification ; how much more shall the offering of Christ, endow- 
ed-with eternal life, or, with an immortal spirit, purify the con- 
science, etc.’ To this view of the subject I was myself inclined, 
before I made a special investigation of the word mvevma, as appli- 
ed to Christ. In doing this, I found, beside the present instance, 


two other cases, in which it is pretty evidently applied to designate 
his glorified state, in the world of spirits, in distinction from his | 


state of incarnation and humiliation. Thus Rom. 1: 3, i, KOTO 
avevua ayrwovrns designates a state of distinction from xara ee 
the human nature of Christ, that was descended from David ; 
ongouatos AaBid, xara oaoxa....viou Deo ev Ovvapel, % O- 
ra nvevpa. Kara vero ayewovrns here designates the con- 
dition, in which Christ was the exalted and powerful Son of God, 
viov Seov év dvvauet, comp. Phil. 2: 8, 9. Heb. 2: 9, 10; 1. e. it is 
descriptive of that spiritual majesty, ayewourn, 347, 19, or exalta- 
tion, which belongs to the Saviour, in the heavenly world. So 1 
Pet. 3: 18, Davarwieig [Xovords] wey cagul, Cwononeis O8 mvEv- 
part, i.e. in his incarnate nature, subjected to sufferings and death ; 
in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or condition, enjoying happiness 
and glory. So in | Cor. 15: 45, the last Adam, i. e. Christ, is call- 
ed avevuc Cwoxocovr, in distinction from the woyn Sooo attributed 
to the first Adam. This could not be because Christ had an z- 
mortal soul, and Adam had only a living animal soul; for Adam 
too was immortal. It would seem, here, that mvevue and Wwuyn both 
designate a spiritual or immortal nature ; but mvevua here desig- 
nates such a nature of a higher order ; and the antithesis is more 
fully made by Gwonovovy and (wor, lifegiving and hving. 

With these texts, I am now inclined to believe the one in our 
verse is to be classed; and that the sense is to be given to it, which 
I have just expressed, viz. in his eternal state or condition, i. e. his 
heavenly one, Christ presented his offering, etc. As to dva, there 
is no difficulty in making such a translation of it. It is frequently 
used with the genitive in order to denote the quality, condition, cir- 


+ 


376 Excursus XIX. Hes. 9: 28. 








cumstances, or means, that have relation to any thing or person ; 
e. g. 2 Cor. 3: 11, dra dokns, i. g. év doky in the other clause of the 
verse and in vs. 8,9, and equivalent plainly to évdoé0g. So Rom. 
2: 27, due youuparos, with the Scripture, i.e. having the Scripture, 
dua megerouns, with circumcision, i. e. circumcised; Rom. 4: 11, dc 
axgoSvotius, uncircumcised; Phil. 1: 20, <ire dua Cong sive Ove 
Savarov, whether living or dying. Comp. also dca in Rom. 14: 20. 
8:25. Heb. 12:1. See Wahl on dva no. 3. a. b. Matthiae, § 580. e. 
In confirmation of this exegesis, it may be added, that in vs. 11, 
12, the blood of Christ is expressly affirmed to be offered by him in 
the heavenly sanctuary. If v. 14 contains substantially a recogni- 
tion of the same or the like sentiment, (which it seems to do), then 
dua mvevpmaros aiwveov may well refer to the eternal spiritual na- 
ture or condition of the Saviour in glory, who presented himself, in 
the heavenly temple, with such a nature, as a spotless offering to 
God, and procured that pardon and purification which the sinner 
needs. With this interpretation Storr substantially accords, who 
renders Ova TMVEVMATOS ataviov by ‘in dem Zustande der ewigen 
Hrerrlichkeit,” or “ kraft seines herrlichen Zustandes,” in the state 
of eternal glory, or by virtue of his glorious state. That Christ was 
himself both the offering and the priest who presented it, is plain 
from Heb. 9: 11-14, and Eph. 5: 2. Heb. 10: 10. 
Respecting a phrase so difficult as the above, much confidence 
would not be becoming. I have laid before the reader different in- 
terpretations ; and if he is dissatisfied with that which [ have pre- 
ferred, he can choose another that will giye him more satisfaction. , 


EXCURSUS XIX.” 


Heb. 9: 28. Ovr1a xai o Xocor0s anak npocerezgdeic, sug 


‘\ ~ > u c 
10 nohdwy aveveyxely apmagitas. 


The importance of the phrase, and the many constructions put 
upon it that are inconsistent with the wsus loquendi of the sacred 
writers, render it desirable accurately to determine its meaning. 
To bear sin, then, is to suffer the punishment due to it, i.e. to take 


wt 


Excursus XIX. —— 9:28. 377 








upon one’s self the consequences of sin, or to baebicet one’s self to 
its consequences. The phrase is sometimes used for exposure to 
the consequences of sin; e. g. Lev. 5: 17, 1, comp. vs. 3—5. 7: 18. 
To bear iniquity, (7>2 NY2) means also, to be cut off from the con- 
gregation of God’s people, Lev. 20: 17. Num. 9: 13; it means, to 
die or perish, Num. 18: 22, 32. Ex. 23: 43. Lev. 24: 15, 16. So it 
is sometimes employed as a general expression, to designate any 
kind of sufferings borne or inflicted in consequence of sin; as in 
Num. 14: 33, 34, where in the 33d verse, Ye shall bear your whore- 
doms means, Ye shall bear the consequences of them 3 just as in v. 
34, Ve shall bear your iniquities means, Ye shall bear or endure the 
consequences of them. Thus is the phrase employed, where the 
subject in question is one’s own sins. But 

2. To bear the sins of others, is to bear or endure the suffering 
or penalty due to them. So in Heb. 9: 26, auagz/as means the 
consequences of sin or penalty due to it. In Lam. 5: 7, Jeremiah 
represents the afflicted people of Israel as saying, ‘‘ Our fathers have 
sinned, and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities, DANY 
92220. So in Ezek. 18: 19, 20, to bear the iniquity of another 
means, to die or perish on his account, v. 20, comp. v. 17. Is. 53: 
4, he bore our distresses, Nivi 27>, he carried [or bore] our sor- 
rows, 520 13°IN212 is explained in v. 5 by, he was wounded for our 
transgressions, 3 qa"y WEN pom; he was smitten on account of our 
transgressions, qs NDI7. So nw2 means, to suffer, Prov. 
19: 19. Micah 7:9; as does ‘the corresponding Greek word Saore- 
fo in Gal. 5: 10, and gzgw in Heb. 13: 13. “dAvagégo has the 
same sense as g¢ow and @aorafw, when used in such a connexion, 
and corresponds to the Hebrew N'v2 and 520. So Peter says of 
Jesus, avnveyne—tas auaotiag ypov, in his own body, on the cross, 
1 Pet. 2: 24; to explain which he adds, by whose stripes ye are 
healed; i. e. Jesus suffered the penalty due to our sins, in his own 
body, on the cross; and by his sufferings, our obligation to the pe- 
nalty ceases. The passage is quoted from Is. 53: 4, 5, which has 
the same meaning as 53: 11, 12; and here we have, He bore their 
sins, S30) DMA» , he bore [or carried] the sins of many, D°2I-NOM 
niv?. A comparison of all these instances, (more might be adduc- 
ed), will serve to shew how plain and uniform the Scripture idiom 
is, in respect to the sense attached to the phrase bearing the sin ei- 
ther of one’s self or of others. It always means, either ‘ actual suf- 

VOL. II. 48 


zi 
¥, 


378 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 





fering of the consequences due to sin,’ or, ‘ exposure to suffer them, 
obligation to suffer them.’ 

That auaortiacs, Heb. 9:28, may mean, and does mean, the con- 
sequences of sin, or penalty of it, is plain, (1) From the impossibility, 
that the passage here can have any other sense. ‘ The moral turpi- 
tude of our sins Jesus did not take upon himself; nor remove it, 
{as it is in itself considered) ; but the consequences of them he pre- 
vented, by his own sufferings. (2) The corresponding Hebrew 
words, NNWN, Fy, and sw, all mean, punishment or penalty of sin, 
as well as, sin, or iniquity itself. 

The sentiment of the clause, then, clearly is, that Jesus, by his 
death, (which could take place but once), endured the penalty that 
our sins deserved, or bore the sorrows due tous. But this general 
expression is not to be understood, as if the writer meant to say, 
with philosophical precision, that the sufferings of Jesus were in all 
respects, and considered in every point of view, an exact and speci- 
fic quid pro quo, as it regards the penalty threatened against sin. 
A guilty conscience the Saviour had not; eternal punishment he 
did not suffer ; despair of deliverance he did not entertain. It is 
altogether unnecessary to suppose, that the writer meant to be un- 
derstood here, with metaphysical exactness. But, that vicarious 
suffering is here designated, seems to be an unavoidable conclusion, 
as well from the usws loquendi of the Scriptures, as from the nature 
of the argument through the whole of chapters 1x. and x. 





EXCURSUS XX. 


Heb. 10: 5. Sauce dé xatnoticw wor. Ps. 40: 7. DIN 
"5 n°), 1. e. mine ears hast thou opened. 


But how could the Seventy render the Hebrew expression here, 
by sama xatnotiow wor? And how could the apostle follow them 
in this rendering ; and even build an argument on such a transla- 
tion, in order to establish the proposition, that the blood of goats 
and bullocks could not avail to take away sin? Questions which 


Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 379 
= 
have exceedingly perplexed commentators, and over which most of 
them have chosen to pass in silence. It is, indeed, much better to 
be silent, than to speak that which is erroneous, or will mislead the 
unwary. Still, the ingenuous inquirer, who wishes to see every 
difficulty fairly met, is offended with silence on a subject of such a 
nature, and cannot well resist a secret inclination to attribute it 
more to want of knowledge, or to want of candour, than to real 
prudence and discretion. At least, we ought freely to confess our 
ignorance, where we feel it, and not affect to be profoundly wise 
about things of which we may not venture to speak, or are not able 
to speak, either to our own satisfaction, or to that of others. 

Cappell, Ernesti, and some other critics strive to maintain the 
probability, that the Septuagint reading in Ps. 40:7, was formerly 
eitiov xatnotiow uot, which by some accident has been changed, 
and the text of the apostle, in the New Testament, adapted to it. 
But of this there is no proof. Indeed, there is manifest proof that 
the apostle originally wrote owe in v. 5, by a comparison with it 
of his expression in v. 10. 

The difficulty cannot be met, then, by a change of the text; 
much less by such a change, when it is not authorised by any of the 
laws of sound criticism, and is against the context. 

Were it not that the Septuagint contains the expression oma 
xatnotiow mov, I should be inclined to believe, that it was merely 
a parenthetic circumstance, thrown in by our author, in order to 
explain the object of his quotation. In sacrifice and offering thou 
hast no delight, says the personage who is speaking. But what is 
to take their place? is the natural inquiry. What shall be substitut- 
ed for them? Saua xarnotiow mor, is the answer, i. e. my body, 
which I am to offer as a sacrifice, is to come in their place ; this 
wil] be a sacrifice acceptable, efficacious. In short, if the Septua- 
gint did not contain the expression, we might conclude that the 
writer of the epistle added it, in order to convey the sentiment of 
the whole passage in some such manner as the following: “ In sa- 
crifice and oblation I have no pleasure ;’’ my body hast thou adapt- 
ed, viz. for oblation, i. e. as if the writer had said, “‘ The speaker 
means, that his own body was to take the place of sacrifice and ob- 
lation.” 

But as the Septuagint text now is, we are compelled to believe, 
that the apostle has guoted it, and applied it to his purpose. Has 


380 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 








he then made any substantial part of his argument to depend on 
the clause in question? An important inquiry, which may go some 
way towards removing the difficulties that the clause presents. 

In vs. 8, 9, the writer presents the argument deduced from his 
quotation, in the following manner. ‘ First, he says, sacrifice, and 
offering, and holocausts, and sin offerings, thou has no delight in, 
neither dost thou desire ; (which are offered agreeably to the re- 
quirements of the law); next, he says, Lo I come to do thy will! 
He abolishes the first, then, in order to establish the second.” That 
is, he sets aside the efficacy of ritual sacrifices and offerings, and 
establishes the efficacy of a Saviour’s obedience unto death; comp. 
Phil. 2: 8. 

Now in this conclusion, there is nothing dependent on the clause 
coun xaryotiow wor. The antithesis of legal offerings, is, doing 
the will of God, v. 9, viz. the obedience of the Saviour in offering 
up his body, v. 20. This last verse describes, indeed, the manner 
in which the obedience in question was rendered. But the argu- 
ment, as expressed in the 8th and 9th verses, is not made to depend 
on the manner of the obedience ; for the object of the writer here, 
is to shew the nullity of the Levitical sacrifices for spiritual purpos- 
es, and the fact that the Old Testament discloses this, and intimates 
their abolition. 

I must regard, then, the use of owue xarnotiow mov by the 
apostle, as rather an incidental circumstance, than as an essential 
one. He found it, in the text of the Septuagint which he used. | It 
was well adapted for the particular purpose he had in view; as it 
turned the mind of the reader to Christ, as the true expiatory vic- 
tin, ‘rather than to the sacrifices prescribed by the law. It was al- 
together accordant with the general tenor of the passage which he 
was citing, and the conclusion which he was to adduce from it. 
But he does not make, (as we have seen), the force of his argument 
to depend upon it. Were this the fact, and were we to suppose, 
(and we have no critical evidence for believing the contrary,) that 
the Hebrew text stood, in his day, as it now stands; it would be a 
case in point, to prove the extent to which the sacred writers have 
deemed it proper to employ the argumentum ad hominem, and adapt 
their reasonings to the modes of explaining the Scriptures practised 
by their readers. As it now is, I do not feel that much dependance 
can be placed on it, to establish a proposition of this nature ; for on 


Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 381 





the whole, I must view the employment of the phrase, as found in 
the Septuagint, rather incidental, than essential to the writer’s pur- 
pose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the case before us, viz. 
that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all respects to ad- 
here to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum rather 
than ad literam. Even ooe xarnertiom wou may be brought with- 
in the general limits of an ad senswm quotation, as Storr has re- 
marked; for preparing a body, in this case, is preparing it for an 
offering,—to be devoted to the service of God. Now this is a spe- 
cies of obedience of the highest nature. If a body were given to 
the Saviour, which he voluntarily devoted to death, Phil. 2: 8, then 
were his ears indeed opened, or, he was truly obedient. The impli- 
cation of the phrase oma xernotiow uot, in the connexion where 
it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim, instead of the legal 
sacrifices ; of course, a devotedness of the highest nature is implied. 
Ad sensum, then, in a general point of view, the text may be regard- 
ed as cited; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the New Testa- 
ment writers aim. 

One more difficulty, however, remains. It is alleged, that Ps. 
XL. cannot well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to 
David himself. How then could the writer of our epistle appeal 
to it, for a proof that the obedience unto death, of the Messiah, was 
to accomplish what the Jewish sacrifices could not, viz. a removal 
of the penalty due to sin ? 

That there are difficulties, in the way of interpreting this Psalm 
as originally having had direct respect to the Messiah, every intel- 
ligent and candid reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1) 
What was the deliverance from impending destruction, which Ps. 
40: 2—3 [1, 2] describes? On what occasion was the song of 
gratitude for deliverance uttered? vs. 4—6 [3--5]. (2) How 
could the inzquities of him, ‘‘ who knew no sin,” take hold of him? 
v. 13 [12]. (3) How could the Messiah anticipate such troubles, 
as are alluded to in vs. 12—-14 [11-13]; and particularly, how 
can he, who when suspended on the cross prayed that his enemies 
might be forgiven, be supposed to have uttered such imprecations 
as are contained in vs. 15, 16 [14, 15]? 

To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some 
have supposed, that the first and last parts of the Psalm in question 
relate to David, while vs. 7-9 [6--8] contain a prediction respect- 


382 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 





ing the Messiah; at least, that they are spoken concerning him. 
But it is not easy to conceive, how more than one person can be 
spoken of throughout the Psalm, it being all of the same tenor, 
and throughout appearing to be made up of words spoken by a suf- 
fering person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils, but 
was still exposed to many more. 

Others have maintained, that the whole Psalm relates only to 
David ; and that, consequently, the writer of our epistle accommo- 
dates his argument to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, pro- 
bably current at the time when he wrote. Among these are some, 
whose general views of theology are far from coinciding with those 
of the neological class of critics. But there is a difficulty in regard 
to this, which must be felt by every reflecting and sober minded 
man. How could the apostle employ as sound and Scriptural ar- 
gument, adapted to prove the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, 
an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical, but without any 
solid foundation? And how could he appeal to it, as exhibiting 
the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only person 
whom it concerned? Ifthe Old Testament has no other relation 
to the Messiah, than what is built upon interpretations that are the 
offspring of fancy and ingenious allegory ; then how can we shew, 
that the proof of a Messiah deduced from it is any thing more than 
fanciful or allegorical? And was it consistent with sound integri- 
ty, with sincere and upright regard to truth, to press the Hebrews 
with an argument, which the writer himself knew to have no solid 
basis? Or if he did not know this, then ia what light are we to- 
regard him, as.an interpreter of Scripture, and a teacher of Chris- 
tian principles ? ; 

Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it diffi- 
cult to admit the opinion under examination, without abandoning 
some of the fundamental principles, on which our confidence 1 in the 
real verity of the word of God rests. 

Nor does that scheme of interpretation, which admits a double 
sense of Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains 
so much of the Psalm, as will most conveniently apply to David, as 
having a /iteral application to him; and so much of it as will con- 
veniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great 
saving of labour in investigation, and of perplexity and difficulty, 
might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient! 


Excursus XX. Hes. 10:5. 383 





But the consequences of admitting such a principle should be well 
weighed. What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a 
book of designed enitgmas! And even this has but one real mean- 
ing. The heathen oracles indeed could say, Aio te, Pyrrhe, Ro- 
manos posse vincere ; but can such an equivoque be admissible into 
the oracles of the living God? And if a literal sense, and an occult 
sense can, at one and the same time, and by the same words, be 
conveyed ; who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense 
is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none 
that belong to human language ; for other books than the Bible, 
have not a double sense attached to them. 

For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a dou- 
ble sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the 
fundamental principles of interpretation, by which we arrive at es- 
tablished conviction and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless 
ocean of imagination and conjecture, without rudder or compass. 

If it be said, that the author of our epistle was inspired, and 
therefore he was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. 40: 
7--9 [6—8]; the answer is obvious. The writer in deducing his 
argument from these verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of 
them which his readers would recognize, and to which, he took vit 
for granted, they would probably consent. Otherwise the argu- 
ment could have contained nothing in it of a convincing nature to 
them; as the whole of it must have rested, in their minds, upon 
the bare assertion and imagination of the writer. 

May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of ac- 
commodating the language of the Old Testament, in order to ex- 
press the writer’s own views? Such cases are indeed frequent in 
the New Testament. God says, by the prophet Hosea, ‘‘ When 
Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of 
Egypt, 11: 1.” Now this is not prediction, but narration. But 
when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the 
infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, ‘ This took place, so that this pas- 
sage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, iva ninowdy 
x.t.4. Now here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of 
events ; so that what is said of Israel, God’s son in ancient times, 
might be affirmed of his Son Jesus, in later times, in a still higher 
sense, and in a similar manner. May not the writer of our epistle 
have accommodated the language of Ps. xu., in a similar way? 


384 Excursus XX. Hen. 10: 5. 








May he not have merely expressed his own views in language bor- 
rowed from the Old Testament, without intending to aver, that (as 
it stands in the original Scriptures) it has the same meaning which 
he now gives to it? 

This would indeed relieve, in a great measure, the difficulties 
under which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the 
nature of the writer’s argument seems to forbid the admission of it. 
He had asserted, (which was entirely opposed to the feelings and 
belief of most Jewish readers), that ‘ the blood of bulls and goats 
could not take away sin.” What was the proof of this? His own 
authority ; or that of the Jewish Scriptures? Clearly he makes an 
appeal to the latter ; and argues, that, by plain implication, they teach 
the inefficacy of Jewish sacrifices, and the future rejection of them. 
Consequently, we cannot admit here a mere expression of the wri- 
ter’s own sentiments, in language borrowed from the Old 'Testa- 
ment. 

Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in re- 
gard to the subject under consideration ; which is, that Ps. x1. re- 
lates throughout to the Messiah. This is certainly a posszble case. 
T mean that there is no part of this Psalm, which may not be inter- 
preted so as to render its relation to the Messiah possible, without 
doing violence to the laws of language and interpretation. ‘To ad- 
vert to the objections suggested on page 381; it may be replied to 
the first, that the enemies of the Saviour very often plotted against 
his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and that he, as often, escaped 
out of their hands, until he voluntarilyegave up himself to death. 
The thanksgivings, in the first part of Ps. xu., may relate to some 
or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of our epis- 
tle represents the Psalm as spoken, when the Messiah was «/oevyo- 
mévos £9 TOV xOOMOY, coming [i. e. about to come] into the world, 
and therefore before his birth; the answer is, that the phrase by no 
means implies, of necessity, that the Messiah uttered the sentiments 
here ascribed to him, before his incarnation, but during it. Zoeg- 
yousvos, entering, being entered, or, when he had entered into the 
world, he said, @vove z.7.4. That the Saviour prayed to God, 
gave thanks, made supplications and deprecations, as men do, need 
‘not be proved to any reader of the Evangelists, On what particu- 
lar occasion in the Messiah’s life, the words in Ps. 40: 7—9 were 
uttered, it is needless to inquire. Indeed, that they were ever for- 


Excursus XX. Hes. 10:5. 385 





mally and ad literam uttered, it is quite needless to shew ; inasmuch 
as all which the Psalmist intends by the expression of them, is, that 
they should be descriptive of his true character; which would be 
such, that we might well suppose him to utter them, or, that they 
would be appropriate to him. Ina word, the Psalmist represents 
the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to exhibit the true 
nature of the Messiah’s character. 

The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. 
How could the szz/ess Messiah be represented as suffering for his own 
iniquities ? Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of 
others might be laid upon him; as the Scriptures plainly testify that 
they were, | Pet.2: 24. Heb. 9: 28. Is. 53: 4,5, 12; 1. e. he might 
suffer on account of the sins of others, or in their stead ; but as to 
sins of his own, he had none to answer for. ‘The whole strength of 
the objection, however, lies in the version of the word .niiz (Ps. 
40: 13), which the objector translates my iniquities, sins, transgres- 
sions. But who, that is well acquainted with the Hebrew idiom, 
does not know, that 742 means, punishment, calamity, misfortune, as 
well as iniquity, etc.? David, when he was chased away from Je- 
rusalem by his rebel son, calls his calamity his jy. Perhaps the 
Lord, says he, will look favourably 2422, on my calamity, 2 Sam. 
16: 12; for his stn it was not, in this case. Comp. Ps. 31: 11. Is. 
5: 18. <A concordance will supply other cases, particularly cases 
where the meaning is penalty, punishment. Analogous to the case 
of 74, we have seen to be that of nNwn and yg; see on chap. 9: 
28. Excurs. XIX. In Ps. 40: 13, then, %735» may, agreeably to the 
usus loquendi, be translated, calamities, distresses; and that these 
came upon the Messiah (7239474), will not be doubted. ; 

So, in 2 Cor. 5: 21, auaoriay énoinoe, i.e. God made Christ a sin 
offering, or, subjected him to calamity ; and in Heb. 9: 26, adéery- 
Gwv apagtiag means, a removing of the calamitous consequences of 
sin. 

The third objection may be very briefly answered. Nothing 
can be easier than to suppose the Messiah might, at any period of 
his public life, have anticipated severe trials, and have deprecated 
them ; as we know full well, how strongly he deprecated his final suf- 
ferings when he wasin the garden of Gethsemane. ‘That he should 
formally and literally use the identical words of the 40th Psalm, 
was not necessary ; but that he should have been in a condition, 

VOL. I. 491 


386 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 


such as the language there describes, is all that is necessary to jus- 
tify the application of the Psalm to him. 

In regard to the last objection, which has respect to the impre- 
cations contained in the latter part of Ps. xu. ; they may be, and 
probably are, viewed in a different light by different persons. Con- 
sidered as simple maledictions, they would be unworthy of the Psal- 
mist, or of the Messiah. But as denunciations against the impeni- 
tent and persevering enemies of God and of David, or of Christ, 
they present themselves to the mind in a very different light. Da- 
vid did frequently utter denunciations against his enemies. So did 
Christ against his ; e. g. against the Scribes and Pharisees, against 
Jerusalem, and against the Jewish nation. Yet who will say, that 
this was for want of tenderness in him, or of benevolent feelings to- 
wards those who were his enernies? Noone can say this, who con- 
siders the whole of his character as represented by the Evangelists. 
If then he might, and did in fact, utter denunciations against his 
enemies and persecutors, he might be represented as doing this by 
the Psalmist, without any error committed in so doing. 

The objections, then, do not appear to be of a conclusive nature, 
which are made to the application of the 40th Psalm to the Messiah. 
Still, I freely acknowledge, that had not the New Testament referred 
to this Psalm, as descriptive of the work of the Messiah, I should 
have been satisfied, in general, with the application of it to David 
himself, or even to the people of Israeli collectively considered. Yet 
a minute consideration of vs. 7, 8 [6,7] certainly might serve to sug- 
gest some difficulty, in respect to such an application. Obedience is 
there represented as the substitute for Sacrifices. So the writer of 

our epistle understood it. And it is said to be written in the sacred 

volume, that this would be the case, respecting the individual whose 
obedience is there described. Is this any where written respecting 
the obedience of David? Is the obedience of the Jewish nation 
any where represented as a substitute for sacrifices? Rather, did 
not a part of their obedience consist in offering them ? 

After all, however, the whole passage might, perhaps, be con- 
strued as merely affirming, that obedience is more acceptable to 
God than sacrifice, and that this is so declared in other Scriptures. 
Comp. 1 Sam. 15: 22. Ps. 50: 9 seq. Is. 1: 11 seq. At least, this 
mode of interpretation must be admitted to be a possible one. . 

Let us grant, then, what cannot fairly be denied, that the 40th 


Excursus XX. Hep. 10: 5. ‘ye? 





Psalm, according to general laws of interpretation, might be applied 
to David. Is it not equally plain, that there is nothing in it which 
may not, without doing any violence to the laws of language, be 
applied to David’s Sun, in a still higher and nobler sense? After 
what has been suggested, in respect to this application, I shall ven- 
ture to consider the application itself as possible. 

Here then is presented a case of the following kind. A Psalm 
composed by an inspired writer, is, (in itself considered, i. e. the 
words or diction being simply regarded), capable of an application 
to David, or to the Son of David, the Messiah. To whom shall it 
be applied by us? If there be nothing but simply the Psalm itself to 
direct our interpretation, the answer must be, ‘To David;’ for the 
natural application of the words of Scripture, (which in themselves 
are not necessarily predictions), is to the persons in being when 
they were written. But, if we have a good reason for making the 
application of them in a prophetic sense, to some future personage, 
then ought we to make such an application. Consequently, the 
question in respect to the application of the 40th Psalm depends on 
the fact, whether we have sufficient reason to construe it as predic- 
tion, i.e. as descriptive of a personage who was to appear at a fu- 
ture period, viz. of David’s Son. In itself it is capable of such an 
explanation. Paul has aciually made such an application of it. 
The nature of the case shews, too, that the Hebrews of that time 
were accustomed so to explain it; for otherwise, the argument of 
the apostle would not have been admitted as of any force, by his 
readers. Whence did the Hebrews derive such an interpretation ? 
Or, (which is of higher moment), how could the apostle appeal to 
Ps. 40: 7, 8, for proof of the efficacy of Christ’s obedience unto 
death, as well as of the inefficacy of ritual sacrifices? This appeal, 
then, under such circumstances as shew, that the stress of his argu- 
ment lies upon the meaning he gives to the passage of Scripture 
which he quotes, settles the question how the 40th Psalm is to be 
interpreted, with all those who admit the authority of the writer of 
our epistle, either as a teacher of Christian doctrine, or an exposi- 
tor of the word of God. At all events, it cannot be shewn, that the 
40th Psalm has no original relation to the Messiah. To shew that 
it is capable of another interpretation, is effecting nothing. ‘The 
second Psalm, and all other Psalms relating to Christ, borrow their 
imagery—their costume, from the times when they were written, 


388 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 





and the persons, manners, and customs then existing; and of 
course, in a greater or less degree, appear, at first view, to relate 
only tothem. In describing the future King of the Jews, the wri- 
ters of ancient times would naturally borrow their imagery from 
the kings of that day. But to affirm, that because they did this, 
they had reference, and could have reference, only to the kings of 
their times, would be a position as little consistent with the prin- 
ciples of language and interpretation, as it is with the numerous 
declarations of the writers of the New Testament. 

It will be easily perceived, that in admitting the possibility of 
applying the 40th Psalm to David, I have admitted that vs. 7 and 
8 may be interpreted, as expressing merely the general principle, 
that obedience is better than sacrifices. But if we suppose, with the 
writer of our epistle, that David, when he composed this Psalm, 
meant to intimate, that this obedience was to be * obedience unto 
death, even the death of the cross,’ then must it follow, of course, 
that the Psalm is altogether inapplicable to David; for neither his 
obedience, nor death, nor that of any other person, (the Messiah 
excepted), could supersede the ritual of the Mosaic law, and pre- 
pare the way for its abolition. Supposing then the apostle to have 
rightly interpreted the words of Ps. xu., (and who shall correct his 
exegesis ?) the impropriety of applying the Psalm to David is plain ; 
and the propriety of referring it to the Messiah needs no farther 
vindication. 


FINSS, 











ru. 


shea 
ie 
‘ 





DATE DUE 












































